9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipient of the service so as to make it liable to pay service tax on reverse charge basis in terms of the provisions of Section 66 A of Finance Act 1994. Demand of Service tax - Airport taxes collected - Includibility in assessable value - Held that:- CESTAT in many cases has clearly held that airport taxes were collected by the airlines on behalf of the airports and were paid to them and therefore are not includible in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of service tax. Therefore, demand unsustainable. Preponement and postponement charges - collected in connection of rendering the service in relation to providing transport of passengers by air service inasmuch as these charges are recovered for changing the dates of travel - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ashok Jindal, Member (J) And R. K. Singh, Member (T) For the Petitioner : Sh Atul Kumar Gupta, CA Shri Akhil Gupta, CA For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, DR ORDER Per R. K. Singh Assessee is in appeal against order-in-original number 58-60//GB/2012 dated 20/02/2012 in terms of which demands along with interest and penalties were confirmed under online information and database access or retrieval service under reverse charge mechanism on the service provided by Computer Reservation System (CRS)/Global Distribution System (GDS). 2. Revenue has also filed appeals against the same order-in-original for dropping the demand relating to the charges (collected by the appellant from the passengers) which relate to airp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ters in the USA was on its behalf and that the judgement in the case of British Airways is not applicable to the present case. 6. Revenue with regard to its appeal stated that airport taxes were collected as part of the gross amount received for the service rendered, and therefore, the same are includible in the assessable value. It also stated that the preponement and postponement charges are nothing but amounts charged for providing service in relation to transport of passengers by air and therefore service tax was clearly leviable thereon. The appellant assessee on the other hand argued that airport taxes were merely collected on behalf of the airports and were remitted to them (i.e., the airports) and that the preponement and postpon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of service tax: 1. Turkish Airlines Vs. CST, Delhi [2013 (30) STR 367 (Tri-Del)] 2. Srilankan Airlines Ltd. Vs. CST, Chennai [2011 (21) STR 656 (T)] 3. Lufthansa German Airlines VS. CST, Delhi [S. No. 55115/2014, dt. 2.12.2014] Therefore, Revenue's appeal on this aspect (i.e., regarding service tax on airport taxes collected by the appellant assessee) is not sustainable. 9. As regards the preponement and postponement charges, the very nature of such charges shows that they are collected in connection of rendering the service in relation to providing transport of passengers by air service inasmuch as these charges are recovered for changing the dates of travel. Thus, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d postponement charges and penalty under Section 78 ibid, is not impossible. However, penalty under section 76 ibid, is clearly attracted as that is not necessarily dependent upon the existence of wilful misstatement/suppression of facts as is evident from the wording of the said section. 10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we passed the following order: (I) the appellant assessee's appeal number ST/718/2012 is allowed (II) the Revenue's appeal No.ST/ 914/2012 is partially allowed only to the extent that the demand of service tax on the pre-ponement and postponement charges is confirmed for the normal period of one year along with interest (as per section 75 of the Finance act 1994) and penalty under section 76 Ib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
