Jurispruden tiol – Tomorrow 's cases Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.

By Vijay Kumar

Central Excise

Swagging amounts to manufacture - Once the process amounts to manufacture, the fact that goods belong to same tariff heading would not be relevant: SC

The definition of "manufacture" includes "any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product". Therefore, on analyzing Section 2(f), it becomes clear that the word "process" must be in relation to manufacture. By this definition, it is made clear that the process must be incidental to the completion of the manufactured product. In other words, incidental process must be an integral part of manufacture resulting in a finished product which has to be of a different physical shape, size and use. The said process must impart a change of lasting character to the original product or raw material. After the process, a new finished product must come into existence. It comes into existence only when it acquires a distinguishable identity.

Income Tax

CIT (A) transferred but holds on to office and also functions without jurisiction : De facto doctrine not to apply to such a case but HC directs CBDT to prevent officers under posting of transfer from discharging quasi-judicial functions till issue is sorted out

IT is Annual General Transfer ( AGT ) season in North Block. And some officers going to CAT and getting some temporary relief is not uncommon. However, here is a situation which neither the CBDT nor the taxpayers ever imagined to see in real life, and the same has compelled the High Court to pass strictures against the Commissioner of Income Tax who despite being transferred out continued to hold on to his CIT(A) office and also pass appellate orders. This irregularity became more glaringly unpleasant particularly in the light of the fact that his successor who was posted there as per the Board 's transfer order had assumed the charge of CIT ( A).

There are similar cases under CBEC also where Commissioners (Appeals) have passed back dated orders after they have been transferred out of their postings.

Central Excise

Kiosk is a computer, rules CESTAT

OUR judges are required to decide complicated technical issues, which they do with great aplomb, putting even experts to shame.

In this case, the CESTAT was to decide whether a kiosk is a computer and decide it did with computer accuracy and poetic perfection.

It is common knowledge that information technology is a fast-developing phenomenon and the commoners in our country are yet to keep pace with it. Common parlance is, therefore, likely to lag behind technological parlance. Those associated with the technology, manufacture and marketing of the kiosks- like the appellants and the ELCOT functionary – will identify these machines today as computers customized for special purposes, but the laymen may take some more time to do so. Therefore, in our considered view, the Commissioner applied the common parlance test inappropriately to the kiosks in question. He ought to have gone by the Explanation to the Notification, which explained the term ‘computer', rather than by common parlance.

Also see Modern Panchatatntra above

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements