9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1376 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - Business Auxiliary Services - providing travel relating services to both domestic as well as international travellers - export of services - HELD THAT - The appellant filed four appeals before the Tribunal but the Tribunal vide its Final Order dated 28.07.2016 disposed of three appeals only and the present appeal could not be tagged with the earlier appeals as the same was transferred to the CESTAT, Chandigarh for disposal. While disposing of the ROM Application, the Tribunal in Para 9 has held that appeal No. ST/188/2010 filed by Revenue against the impugned order dated 29/10/2009 is rejected. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee is also disposed of. Appeals filed by BTPL (ST/104/2010, ST/55430/2013 and ST/54736/2014) were disposed of in view of above findings on export of services. The department appeal before the Hon ble Apex Court was also dismissed as not pressed for as reported in the Supreme Court Website. Following the ratio of the said decision in the appellant s own case M/S BIRD TRAVELS (P) LTD. VERSUS CCE, NEW DELHI. 2017 (3) TMI 1930 - CESTAT DELHI , the appeal of the appellant allowed on the same terms as was allowed in terms of the decision of the CESTAT, New Delhi in M/S BIRD TRAVELS (P) LIMITED VERSUS CCE, DELHI-I AND CST-DELHI-I (VICE-VERSA) 2016 (8) TMI 720 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
The appeal challenges the order upholding the imposition of service tax on GSA commission received by the appellant from foreign airlines under 'Business Auxiliary Services.' Facts: The appellant provides travel-related services and acts as a General Sales Agent (GSA) for foreign airlines, paying service tax as an International Air Transport Association Agent (IATA). The Department alleged that the GSA commission received is taxable under 'Business Auxiliary Services.' After due process, the original authority confirmed the demand, imposed penalties, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision. The appellant argued that the services provided were export of services as the beneficiaries were foreign airlines without offices in India, and payments were in foreign exchange. Previous tribunal decisions favored the appellant on limitation and export of services. Arguments: The appellant's consultant contended that the impugned order lacked proper appreciation of facts and law. Referring to previous appeals, the consultant highlighted that the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the appellant on limitation and export of services. The department's appeal to impose penalties under Section 78 was dismissed. The consultant prayed for the present appeal's disposal in line with earlier decisions. The Department's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order. Decision: The Tribunal noted that the issue in all appeals was identical. Citing previous tribunal decisions, it held that services provided as GSA to foreign airlines were to be treated as export of services, not liable to service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Services.' The Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal and disposed of the appellant's appeals in line with the findings on export of services. The Tribunal also mentioned that the department's appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, following the earlier decision of the CESTAT, New Delhi. Conclusion: The appeal challenging the imposition of service tax on GSA commission received from foreign airlines was allowed, following previous decisions on export of services. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, considering the services provided as export and not taxable under 'Business Auxiliary Services.'
|
