From our Legal Corner - Wednesday's casesLegal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.

By Vijay Kumar

Income Tax

Separate agreements for supply and erection - not works contract - No TDS for supply - even if both agreements are in same document, it cannot be treated as works contract : ITAT

THIS is the age of Works Contract and litigation on works contract as far as service Tax is concerned is yet to start, but apparently there is enough litigation in the Income tax and sales tax sides of litigant taxes.

The assessee is a central government undertaking engaged in the activity of transmission across the country. During the year under consideration, the assessee was involved in three projects for which contracts were awarded to different contractors. The assessee awarded contracts to various parties to construct/execute the transmission line/sub-station.

Central Excise

Modvat - dutiable and exempted final products - 8% payable even when there is no sale - Supreme Court.

The issue in this civil appeal is as to whether in the absence of any "sale", rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 would have any application or not. The contention of the assessee is that in the case of "stock transfer" there is no "sale" and, therefore, rule 57CC was not applicable. This contention has been accepted by the Tribunal, hence this civil appeal. . The assessee is engaged in manufacture of paper falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff. The assessee is availing the benefit of MODVAT Scheme under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The assessee is also manufacturing pulp falling under Chapter 47 of the Central Excise Tariff, which is chargeable to nil rate of duty. The said pulp is captively consumed for the manufacture of paper. According to the assessee, a small portion of the pulp is sent to the sister unit of the assessee at Asthi; there was no sale of pulp as alleged by the Department; a small quantity of pulp manufactured by the assessee was stock transferred to its sister unit at Asthi.

Whether Committee of Commissioners is required to record reasons while reviewing an order passed by Appellate Commissioner - Matter referred to Larger Bench of Tribunal

THAT'S a quickie - it is only two years since the birth of the concept of Committee in the Central Excise Act & Customs Act and now the matter reaches the Larger Bench.

Incidentally, while reporting the Tribunal decision in Angel Foto 2007-TIOL-1176-CESTAT-MUM holding that "Minutes of meeting conducted by the Committee of Commissioners cannot constitute an authorization in terms of Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962" , we had pointed out -

"A fresh look required - minutely, of course -

The relevant provisions concerning Review by a Committee of Commissioner and Chief Commissioners throw up quite a few startling facts -

Tomorrow is a national Holiday for Lord Krishna's Birthday.

Yatra Yogeshwara Krishno,

Yatra Partho Dhanur Dharh,

Tatra Shree Vijayo Bhooti,

Dhroov Neetir Matir mamah

(The Geeta,chapter 18,sloka 78)

(Wherever, there is combination of Yogeshwara Shri Krishna and Dhanushdhari Arjuna, there shall be Mother Luxmi, victory, prosperity, steadfastness and correct polity that is my firm principle.)

Though it's a holiday. We have an important judgement for you tomorrow.

Preloaded operating system software is an integral part of a laptop and cannot be classified separately - Revenue wins big case in Supreme Court -

The appeal is against the CESTAT order holding that the Software-loaded Hard Discs are classifiable under Heading 85.24 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act. It was further held that respondent will be eligible for duty exemption under Notification No.21/2002-Cus as amended. It was held that rest of the machine would be classified under Heading 84.71.

The Department had demanded customs duty of about Rs.5.9 crores from the respondent by classifying goods imported by them under Heading 84.71 of the First Schedule of the Act and denying them benefit of exemption Notification No.21/2000-Cus. dated 1.3.2002.

See our columns Wednesday for the judgements