Illustrations of ‘goods’:
Goods includes all movable property. It includes * steam – Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. v. CST – (1957) 8STC 61 (AP HC) * animals and birds in captivity – K J Abraham v. Asstt. STO – (1960) 11 STC 291 (KerHC).
Crops, grass, trees attached to earth – Growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of theland which are agreed to be severed before supply or under the contract of supply has been specifically defined as ‘goods’.
Standing trees are not ‘goods’ and not taxable. However, standing timber will be taxable under CST if timberis identified, contract is unconditional and timber is in deliverable state. In such case, it is ‘movable property’and ‘goods’ hence can be taxed. – State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. – AIR 1985 SC 1293 = (1985) 60 STC 213 (SC) * Shantabai v. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 532 – same view in CST v. Durga Shellac Factory (1999) 116 STC 282 (MP HC DB).
Master copies of film songs and music – Master copies of film songs and music are ‘goods’. Intangible property can be ‘goods’ – CIT v. Giza Impex (2008) 166 Taxman 30 (Mad HC DB).
Drawings – Technical drawings are goods – Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. CC 2001(4) SCC 593= 2001 AIR SCW 559 = 128 ELT 21 = AIR 2001 SC 862 = 124 STC 59 (SC 3 member bench).
Knowledge in the form of drawing and design relating to machinery are ‘goods’ – Prerna Textiles v. CCE2000(117) ELT 241 (CEGAT) – civil appeal dismissed by SC (2001) 134 ELT A169.
Design and drawings are ‘goods’ and supply of drawings and designs would not be liable to service tax – SolitzCorporation v. CST (2009) 18 STT 550 (CESTAT).
Design and drawings expressed on media are ‘goods’ and same cannot be subjected to service tax – Mitsui & Co v. CCE (2013) 42 GST 157 = 32 taxmann.com 31 = 68 VST 43 (CESTAT) * CCE v. Kirloskar Brothers (2014) 43 GST 282 = 39 taxmann.com 153 (CESTAT).
Films and programmes on disk is ‘goods’ – In Ushakiran Movies v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006)148 STC 453 (AP HC DB), the appellant had produced films and programmes. These were copies on disksand rights to telecast films and programmes were given to ETV for minimum guaranteed fee and share ofadvertisement revenue. Senior Counsel of applicant gave up the contention (in words of Court ‘fairly gave up contention’) that these are not goods. Hence, Court proceeded on the basis that these are ‘goods’.