9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Service Tax Appeals No.394, 421, 455 of 2011 and ST/55143-55144 of 2013 with 56326 of 2013 - ST/A/57798-57803/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 10-11-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) S/Shri Sanjeev K. Jain, C.A. and Anil Makhija, Advocate for the appellants Ms. Neha Garg, Authorized Representative (DR) for the respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran These six appeals are involving common disputed issues and are accordingly taken up together for disposal. Two appeals each are filed by M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and M/s Royal Jordanian Airlines. The remaining two appeals are filed by M/s China Eastern Airlines and M/s China Airlines. The dispute relates to the period May 2006 to March 2010. The appellants are international airlines and are in the business of operating aircrafts for international passenger transport. The dispute common to all the appellants, is relating to their liability to pay service tax on Passenger Service Fees (PSF) and other taxes (international taxes) collected by the airlines as part of consideration when the tickets are issued to the passengers. 2. The learned Counsel appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended period alleging fraud, mis-representation of fact, collusion etc. In respect of M/s Royal Jordanian Airlines there is another dispute relating to entitlement of Cenvat credit of ₹ 6,99,148/-. In the original order dated 27/11/2009 there is no finding by the Adjudicating Authority on this. Even otherwise, the demand is beyond normal period and cannot be sustained as there is no suppression of act. They have indicated the Cenvat credit in their ST-3 returns. 4. The learned AR supported the findings of the lower Authorities. She submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Air Canada vide final order No. 52137 of 2017 dated 01/03/2017 dismissed the appeal which contested the tax liability on PSF and other airport taxes. In the written submission of the learned AR contested the documents submitted by the appellants to support their claim are neither relevant nor sufficient to decide the dispute in hand. Communication of DIAL does not pertain to relevant period. Though the Ministry of Civil Aviation instructed that PSF shall be collected by respective Airport Authority, there is not mention of airlines collecting the same. The airlines, even if they act on instruction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the said decision. The same provides for Authority to charge fee, rent, etc. The Authority may with the previous approval of the Central Government charge fee or rent for providing various services in the airport. These services may be in the nature of landing, parking of aircrafts, air flight services, amenities given to the passengers, etc. In effect, these charges are with reference to facilities provided by the Airport Authority to the operators of Airlines in connection with their operation or to the passenger, which in any case, is also relatable to their travel. In other words, the persons availing the facilities in airports are the passengers, who are in the process of either inward or outward air travel. The appellants are issuing tickets for such air travel, which in any case, cannot be performed unless the passengers enter and passes through the airports. 8. The Airport Authority fixed certain charges as passenger service fee. This is apparently for the services rendered to the passengers in the airport. The passenger pay such charges as part of the ticket. The appellants pleads that they are not rendering any service towards such fee. 9. During the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id order, the Tribunal though in principle agreed to the proposition of the appellant regarding non-tax liability dismissed the appeal as they failed to submit the supporting evidence as specifically sought for by the Bench. This has been categorically recorded in the said order. In a similar set of facts, in a recent decision in Lufthansa German Airlines Vs. CCE ST, Delhi [Gurgaon] (2017 TIOL 3905 CESTAT CHD) the Tribunal held as below :- We find that Airport Tax has been collected by the appellant as per Section 22 of Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 which empowers the authority to charge fees for the amenities given to the passengers and visitors at any Airport. Further, the PSF has been charged in terms of Aircraft Rules, 1937, wherein Rule 88 of the said Rules, authorize the licensee to collect fees to be called as Passenger Service Fee from the embarking passengers at such rates as the Central Government may specify, and is also liable to pay for security component to any Security Agency designated by the Central Government for providing the security service. We find that the said tax has been collected by the appellant and same has been shown separatel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
