• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Flyover jam

D. Murali

FLYOVERS never cease to be interesting, be it down South or in J&K, as the UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd case would show. The case, which came up before the New Delhi CEGAT, was about `arterial expressway corridor' constructed by the company in Jammu. The J&K Government provided land to the company away from the flyover site for casting beams to be used in construction. Beams were manufactured, the flyover was constructed and the company sought the benefit of excise exemption available for the purpose .

But the Department thought otherwise. Beams were not manufactured at site, but in a place away from the construction site, the excise officials argued.

Mr P. S. Bajaj, Tribunal member, remarked that the Department's view of `site' was too narrow. ``It is well known that in a case of construction of flyovers and bridges in the heart of the congested cities, the government provides place away from the sit e of construction for casting beams and so on, keeping in view public safety and heavy traffic jams,'' he said, before ruling against the Department.

A case of clogged thinking with regard to flyovers.

Unseen nut

AUTOMATIC Engineering Works manufactured nuts and bolts. Simple enough products, but the Department took the company to Mumbai CEGAT, seeking to classify the items as `parts of motor vehicles' since they were for specialised use in motor vehicles.

Mr Gowri Shankar, Tribunal member, reasoned that bolts, nuts and so on were to be considered parts of general use notwithstanding that they have been manufactured for use in a particular machine. There was a heading specifically for bolts, nuts and the l ike of iron and steel, he said, the only exception being threaded mechanisms -- ``sometimes called screws, used to transmit motion.''

Strange that the Department officials can't recognise a nut when they see one. Can you?

Subbu's books

THE focus of the M. T. K. Gurusamy case, which came up before the Chennai CEGAT, was on the work of Ram Subbu, a part-time employee of Rajkumar Match Industries. When the Central Excise officials visited the company's factory, they recovered a private re gister maintained by Subbu.

Noticing discrepancy between the entries in the register and the actuals, the Department demanded differential duty. But the company contested the demand saying that the statement of Subbu, a private employee, was not a dependable piece of evidence for c onfirming the demands.

Mr S. L. Peeran, Tribunal member, cited many previous judgments before ruling that a private note book is not sufficient for confirming clandestine removal.

This can give ideas to employers while hiring excise clerks, but what is bad is the decrying of part-time work as being unreliable.

*********

Tailpiece

``I like to lead a simple life...''

``Good that you are not showing off your riches!''

``I think the Department is also saying the same thing, a bit differently: That I have undisclosed wealth.''

(e-mail: dmurali@thehindu.co.in)