2021 (8) TMI 328 - AT - Service Tax

Recovery of service tax - Tour Operator Services - amount received on account of ticket booking - rent contract booking - luggage booking - direction to rework the amount of tax demanded - N/N. 06/2005 dated 01.03.2005 - HELD THAT - The demand pertaining to ticket booking and bus contract booking, as was raised vide the impugned show cause notice was directed to be reworked based upon the benefit of Notification No.06/2005 dated 01.03.2005 - this finding of adjudicating authority is followed by certain calculations vide which the earlier demand confirmed with respect to bus contract Booking and ticket booking amount has further been reduced to ₹ 3,62,293/-. IThe grievance of the appellant that the demand which can be confirmed after giving the benefit of Notification remains only of ₹ 59,044/-. Also that the adjudicating authority though has reduced the earlier demand confirmed but has not expressly given the reason to how the amount of ₹ 3,62,293/- is still the liability of the appellant even after giving the benefit of said Notification. These observations are sufficient for me to hold that it is difficult to still appreciate as to whether the proper benefit of exemption notification has been extended in favour of the appellant. It is directed that the matter be remanded again with the specific directions to the adjudicating authority to give specific reason for arriving at the calculation about the demand confirmed against the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Compliance with directions of remand, Extension of benefit of Notification No.06/2005, Calculation of demand, Setting aside the confirmation of demand, Invocation of extended period of limitation.

Compliance with directions of remand:
The appeal arose from an Order-in-Original post directions of remand in a previous Final Order. The appellant, a tour operator agency, challenged the order, claiming that the adjudicating authority did not fully comply with the remand direction. The Tribunal had dropped the demand for luggage booking but remanded the matter for reworking the demand confirmed under bus contract booking with the benefit of Notification No.06/2005. The appellant argued that the adjudicating authority failed to extend the proper benefit of the notification and did not provide reasoning for the calculations based on it.

Extension of benefit of Notification No.06/2005:
The appellant contended that the adjudicating authority did not extend the benefit of Notification No.06/2005 as directed by the Tribunal in the remand order. The authority's calculations lacked express reasoning for the application of the notification, leading to ambiguity regarding the demand confirmed against the appellant. The Tribunal observed that the demand should be reworked based on the notification, emphasizing the necessity for clear reasoning in the calculations.

Calculation of demand:
The adjudicating authority reduced the earlier demand confirmed under bus contract booking and ticket booking, but without providing explicit reasoning for the remaining liability of the appellant. Despite the reduction, the appellant's liability was still questioned, indicating a lack of clarity in how the amount was determined post the benefit of the notification. The authority's calculations regarding the demand on bus rent contract booking and booking commission lacked a clear basis.

Setting aside the confirmation of demand:
The appellant sought the confirmation of demand to be set aside due to the incorrect invocation of the extended period of limitation in the show cause notice. Citing a relevant case law, the appellant argued against the validity of the notice and emphasized the need to annul the order under challenge.

Invocation of extended period of limitation:
The appellant raised concerns about the show cause notice wrongly invoking the extended period of limitation, pointing out a previous notice served on similar grounds. The appellant argued that the show cause notice exceeded the scope of calculations based on the amount received, leading to a request for setting aside the confirmation of demand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal directed a remand with specific instructions for the adjudicating authority to provide explicit reasoning for the calculation of the demand confirmed against the appellant. The need for clarity in extending the benefit of Notification No.06/2005 was emphasized to avoid unnecessary delays in resolving the matter, ultimately allowing the appeal by way of remand.