Jurisprudentiol-Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Airport Authority of India loses huge case: Any service provided does not mean any taxable service provided: CESTAT

THE words "any service provided" would cover any service other than those covered by other clauses of section 65(105)(zzm), which have been provided in an Airport or a Civil Enclave by AAI or a person authorised by it.

Interpretation of the expression- "in any airport or a civil enclave": such services would be treated as having been provided in an Airport or a Civil Enclave if the same have been performed within the area of an Airport/Civil Enclave or are in respect of the immovable property located within the airport/ Civil Enclave area. A service would be treated as performed within the Airport/Civil Enclave area if has been performed by the persons of the AAI/authorised person deployed within the area of Airport/Civil Enclave, irrespective of the location of the equipments/machines with whose help the services has been performed and irrespective of the location of the service recipient.

Income Tax

Whether when Revenue finds during investigation that assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entry it is sufficient to conclude absence of true and full disclosure of all facts by assessee - YES: HC

THE assessee company was served notice u/s 148 for having taken accommodation entries by way of share capital. This was confirmed by one entry provider Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain during the Search that the same was provided as bogus accommodation entries to the beneficiary assessee company. Thus the assessment was reopened by the AO, pursuant to the notice u/s 148 which was issued although beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant AY i.e. 2007-08. The assessee objected to the same on the ground that on the basis of a statement given by the third party it cannot be inferred that the share application money received by the assessee was in the form of accommodation entry. Besides, the assessee pointed out two of the seven names indicated in the reasons from whom accommodation entries were allegedly taken by the assessee do not even appear in the books of the assessee. This according to the assessee would itself make the information received suspicious and not authentic.

The issue is - Whether the fact revealed during investigation that the assessee is a beneficiary of an accommodation entry is sufficient for the AO to prima-facie conclude the absence of true and full disclosure of all facts - Whether a disclosure even if full may not be true. And the answer favours the Revenue.

Central Excise

Valuation - Glues & Adhesives - Appellants stand that exemption u/r 34 of SWAM Rules, 1977 is not mandatory is not acceptable - as appellants are marking packages as 'Industrial Use', they are exempted from affixing MRP and, therefore, goods have be valued u/s 4 of CEA, 1944: CESTAT

THE appellant manufactures "Glues and adhesives" falling under Chapter 35 of the CETA, 1985. The said commodity is notified u/s 4A of the CEA, 1944.

Both lower authorities have confirmed the demand raised on the appellant on the ground that they have wrongly adopted MRP based assessment under the provisions of Section 4A of CEA, 1944 inasmuch as the packing of the products indicated that they were supplied to "industrial consumers" and hence they were not covered by the provisions of Standards of Weight and Measurement Act, 1976.

See our Columns tomorrow for the judgements