2010 (11) TMI 651 - HC - Service Tax

Royalty charges - airport services - ground handling - providing space for operating foreign exchange facilities - providing space for running the duty free gold sale shop etc. - order of the tribunal in Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. CST (2010 -TMI - 203622 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) in which it was held that these activities are not liable to service tax sustained.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service tax demand on royalty charges collected from M/s. Air India Ltd.
2. Service tax demand on charges collected from M/s. Thomas Cook for providing space.
3. Service tax demand on charges collected from M/s. Atlas Jewellery for providing space.
4. Service tax demand on collections for disposal of garbage.

Analysis:

1. The first issue pertains to the service tax demand on royalty charges collected from M/s. Air India Ltd. The Tribunal found that M/s. Air India Ltd. is entrusted with ground handling services and collects charges for services rendered, including service tax remitted to the government. The royalty paid by M/s. Air India Ltd. to the respondent is part of the charges on which service tax has already been paid. As the respondent is not rendering any additional service for the royalty, the Tribunal rightly held that there is no scope for levy of service tax on the royalty paid.

2. The second and third issues involve service tax demands on charges collected from M/s. Thomas Cook and M/s. Atlas Jewellery for providing space. The Tribunal determined that these collections were in the form of license charges or rentals for occupying space, without any additional services rendered by the respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly concluded that the respondent is not liable to pay service tax on the amounts received from these parties.

3. The final issue concerns the service tax liability on collections for disposal of garbage. Despite the absence of a written agreement, the Tribunal found that the charges represented payment for materials sold rather than for any service provided by the respondent. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to vacate the service tax demands related to garbage disposal collections. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Department, affirming the Tribunal's findings and decisions on all the issues raised.

In summary, the judgment addressed various service tax demands on different types of collections made by the respondent, emphasizing the distinction between charges for services rendered and payments for the use of space or materials. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decisions, ruling in favor of the respondent and dismissing the appeals filed by the Department.