Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Customs

Framing of Charges - Since the confession of the co-accused is not admissible as he is not being jointly tried with the Petitioner and besides this piece of evidence there is no other evidence, no charge can be framed against the Petitioner for offence, under Section 135A of the Customs Act, 1962 - High Court.

A confession of the co-accused is admissible only under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. One of the essential requirements of the said provision is that the two accused should be tried jointly. Since the confession of the co-accused is not admissible as he is not being jointly tried with the Petitioner and besides this piece of evidence there is no other evidence, no charge can be framed against the Petitioner for offence under Section 135A of the Customs Act.

Income Tax

Whether landing and parking charges paid by international airlines to AAI can be considered as rent for use of land, so as to attract TDS liability u/s 194I - NO: High Court

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether landing and parking charges paid by international airlines to AAI can be considered as rent, so as to attract TDS liability u/s 194-I; Whether mere landing an aircraft on airport amounts to usage of area, even though such landing is only incidental to other complex services provided by AAI; Whether payments made not in pursuance of any existing tenancy agreement, can also qualify as rent u/s 194 I and Whether landing and parking charges paid to AAI for availing complex services i.e landing, take off, navigational facilities, etc,. is in the nature of FTS u/s 194J. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Service Tax

To attract Service Tax under the category of BAS viz. “production of goods on behalf of clients” there would be three parties - since services undertaken by the appellants is not covered by the definition, no service tax is attracted: CESTAT

THE appellants had carried out job work during the period 2004-05 by way of converting the steel plates supplied by M/s. Swiss Glasscoat Equipments Limited into steel shells, agitators, baffles etc. and sending the goods back to the said supplier. So also, there is no dispute as to the fact that the appellants were working under the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Revenue authorities were of the view that appellants are covered under the category of Business Auxiliary Services and are liable to pay Service Tax.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements