9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 1st July, 2003 to 31st March, 2008 and from 1st April, 2008 to 31st March, 2009, confirmed tax of Rs. 2,59,866 and Rs. 1,19,595 for rendering of 'business auxiliary service' on the incentives received from M/s. Saudi Airlines for the period from 1st July, 2003 to 31st March, 2008 and for the period from 1st April, 2008 to 31st March, 2009 to the extent that was not passed on to IATA agents, Rs. 7913 as tax on rendering of 'business auxiliary service' that was short-paid for the period from 1st July, 2003 to 10th May, 2007 for sale of tickets directly to passengers and Rs. 7,13,577 short-paid in relation to commission on cargo booked by IATA agents. Interest on delayed payments and penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disbursement and which is executed on claim filed by IATA agents. Non-claimed amounts remain in transit with the assessee who is liable to discharge the same when claimed. That this has been acknowledged in the impugned order is the contention of the assessee. 5. The adjudicating authority has held that the payment received from M/s. Saudi Airlines is for transmission to IATA agents in acknowledgement of their achievement of target. The contention of Revenue would be tenable if some service was rendered by IATA agents to the assessee for which the consideration was a portion of the incentive received from M/s. Saudi Airlines. In the absence of such a service, it would not fit into the definition of 'taxable service' among those enumer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess amount paid. They also claim that despite excess collection arising from the reclassification of service from 'air travel agent service' to 'business auxiliary service' mandating tax collection with effect from 1st July, 2003 instead of being taxed for the former from 1st July, 1997 and despite acknowledging a credit of Rs. 13,70,769/- and liability of only Rs. 6,40,095/-, they had not been allowed to adjust the amount towards the tax confirmed in the impugned order necessitating a separate payment by them on 18th October, 2011 which should be refunded to them. 9. On the claim of valuation of taxable services as 'cum-tax', we take note of the nature of transactions on which tax has been demanded in the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been adjusted from the excess amount lying after reclassification of direct sale of ticket instead of having been compelled to make good the dues by fresh deposit. Such adjustment can arise only upon invoking the provisions of Section 73A of Finance Act, 1994 which, not having been denied thus far to the assessee by the competent authority, is beyond the scope of determination in this appeal. We are, therefore, unable to consider the plea for refund of the amount paid instead of having been adjusted from the excess tax collected. 12. On the applicability of penalty, we find that the impugned order has made it abundantly clear that the assessee was aware of tax liability but chose not to discharge the same. However, considering t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
