2007 (6) TMI 7 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Service Alleged that the ORC received by the appellant(GSA) from the Sri Lankan Airline in Indian currency are covered under business auxiliary service and accordingly demand tax and impose penalty on it After considering submission tribunal allow the appeal partly

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdictional question regarding the issuance of the show-cause notice by DGCEI, demand of service tax and penalty imposition, similarity with a previous case involving M/s. ETA Travel Agency Pvt. Ltd.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were demanded service tax and penalty for receiving 'Overriding Commission' (ORC) from M/s. Sri Lankan Airlines as General Sales Agent (GSA) for India. The services provided by the appellants to the airlines fell under "Business Auxiliary Service" and were subject to service tax from 1-7-2003. The investigating agency found evidence of awareness regarding the leviability of service tax on ORC and the availability of exemptions. Despite contesting the show-cause notice on various grounds, the impugned order upheld the demand and penalty.

2. The appellants raised a jurisdictional question, arguing that DGCEI had no authority to issue the show-cause notice during the disputed period. The appeal also contested the tax demand and penalty imposition on multiple grounds. The Bench referred to a previous case involving M/s. ETA Travel Agency Pvt. Ltd., where a similar appeal was dismissed, and the service tax demand on ORC was upheld. The penalty in that case was reduced significantly.

3. The Tribunal referred to its Final Order in the case of M/s. ETA Travel Agency Pvt. Ltd., where a comparable demand on ORC was sustained, albeit with a reduced penalty. The Tribunal noted the striking similarity between the two cases and decided to uphold the Commissioner's order in the present appeal. The penalty on the appellants was modified to Rs. 5 lakhs, following the precedent set in the M/s. ETA Travel Agency Pvt. Ltd. case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal after finding similarities with a previous case and modified the penalty imposed on the appellants. The decision was based on the understanding that the facts of both cases were alike, leading to the sustenance of the Commissioner's order with a reduced penalty amount.