9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CRS developers under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service" - The amount collected as incentive was in no way connected to the service rendered by the appellants to their clients in providing the service of booking air tickets nor it was billed to the clients - The appellant were not liable to pay service tax on the amount collected as incentives - As the demand itself was not sustainable, the question of imposing penalty does not arise - Relying upon COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD Vs BALAKRISHNA INDUSTRIES [2006 (8) TMI 182 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and RAJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD. VsCOMMR. OF C. EX., JAIPUR-II-[2004 (8) TMI 578 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. Department had not made any effort to establish that there was Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Air travel agents have been receiving incentive/commission from CRS developers and it appeared that this incentive/commission received is taxable with effect from 01.07.2003 under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service". As it appeared that the appellants had not discharged the service tax liability on the above said incentive received, they were issued with the Show Cause Notice demanding Service Tax liability along with interest in terms of proviso to Section 73(1) and Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The notices also proposed to impose penalties under Sections 76 77 of the said Act. After due process of law the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the proposal initiated in the SCN vide the impugned Order-in-Original but dropped th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it and took up the main appeal for decision, without offering the opportunity of being heard in person, to the appellant. 6.0 The Department had alleged that the appellant by continued usage of the software are providing service by promoting the business of CRS Developers (Amadeus Systems). Hence, they are liable to pay service tax on the incentive received by them. I find from the records that the Department had not made any effort to establish that there is Service provider/ receiver relationship between the appellant and CRS developer. When such relationship is not there, there is no service involved between them. Moreover, the Department had also failed to prove that the amount received by the appellant is a consideration for the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief." 7.0. As such, the amount collected as incentive is in no way connected to the service rendered by the appellants to their clients in providing the service of booking air tickets nor it is billed to the clients. Thus, I see no reason to demand Service Tax on the incentives received by the appellant from CRS developers under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service". 8.0 In view of the above I hold that the appellant are not liable to pay service tax on the amount collected as incentives. As the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of imposing penalty does not arise, as was held in the following cases:- (1) COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD Vs BALAKRISHNA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
