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

By Vijay Kumar

Income Tax

Madras HC rules State Industrial Promotion Corpn is not authority constituted under any law for improvement of cities or villages - not eligible for exemption under Sec 10(20A)

It is an admitted case that the assessee is not an authority constituted in India by or under any law enacted either for the purpose of dealing with and satisfying the need for housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, or for both.

Jurisdiction to make assessment can be assumed only on satisfaction of condition as prescribed under the law - it cannot be conferred with consent of parties : ITAT Third Member

HERE is a confused AO. He is not clear of the status of the assessee, nor his income. He changes the notice and midway through the proceedings, he changed the status of the assessee from individual to HUF! And the members of the Tribunal had a difference!

Central Excise

Difference between 'consumables' and 'raw materials' - Tribunal had not considered dominant ingredient test in regard to cost variation - matter remanded : Supreme Court

APPELLANT-COMPANY is 100% EOU who claimed partial exemption from duty in terms of Notification NO.8/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 in respect of goods sold in Domestic Tariff Area (in short 'DTA'), which stipulated conditions that the goods have been manufactured wholly from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India. According to the company it procured the raw materials from domestic manufacturers in India and also imported (1) Carboxymethyle Cellulose which is used for sizing of single yarn to give strength to the yarn during weaving after which the woven towels are washed to remove completely the sizing materials and (2) Ultra fresh N.M. which is used for anti bacteria and anti fungus treatment of terry towels. The Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the demand of duty on the ground that the sizing materials imported by the company is raw material and as imported raw material has been used, the benefit of Notification No.8/97-CE is not available.

Valuation of Physician Samples - if Board's Circular dt. 25.04.2005 should be applied prospectively, how can Circular dt. 1.7.02 be applied retrospectively for the period from July 2000 - in view of contradiction, matter referred to Larger Bench

REAMS have been spent on analyzing the proper mode of Valuation of Physician Samples, both before & after P&P medicaments were notified under section 4A of the CEA'44 but the mystery ceases to be solved. Another dimension to the entire issue has now been suggested by the WZB of the Tribunal leading to a plea to the President to constitute a Larger Bench to settle the issue.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements