9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ftware of computer reservation system provided by Gallilieo - Extended period of limitation - Held that: - this Tribunal has already decided the issue [2018 (2) TMI 648 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], which is against the appellant - the demand in the case of show cause notice dated 23.09.2010, being issued invoking extended period of limitation on the said issue, therefore, as held in the order, it should be restricted to normal period of limitation. Appeal disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roviding Air Travel Agents Service and at times to meet exigencies they have also purchased tickets from other registered Air Travel Agents and supply it to their customers. It is his contention that the authorized Air Travel Agents discharge the service tax on the applicable amount and pass discounts to the appellants. It is his contention that the said discount cannot be subjected to service tax, as the entire transaction between the appellant and the registered Air Travel Agent is that of sale and purchase of the Airline Tickets and not promotion or marketing service rendered by the appellants to the Air Travel Agents. In support, he has referred to the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Trade Wings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no arrangement either by contract or by otherwise between another travel agent and the appellant for promoting the business of another travel agent. The travelling public is getting only ticket with no identity linking the same to another travel agent. In such situation, it could not be said that the appellant is promoting the business of another travel agent, in their capacity as sub-agent. No such fact has been established in the impugned order by the lower authority. The emphasis by lower authority is only on the point that when they are not selling tickets of airlines directly they are liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service. We find such summary assumptions cannot be sustained. It is not established that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them. Hence, the service provided by the assessee-appellants has rightly been covered under the heading Business Auxiliary Service as defined under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. Thus, we are of the view that the assessee-appellants being providing Tour Operator s Service , the commission received by them is for Business Auxiliary Service under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the assessee-appellants is not applicable in the instant case as the same was dealing with the advertising agencies. So, on the facts, the ratio laid down in the said case is not applicable to the present case. 6. Needless to mention that in the Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax Budget, 2016-17 (pub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by various companies namely, Gallilieo, amadus etc. during the relevant period of time. This has been clarified by issuance of circular dated 29.02.2016. In these circumstance, we are of the view that the demand be restricted to normal period limitation and no penalty is imposable on the Appellants. To ascertain/compute , the demand for normal period, the matters are remanded to the adjudicating authority. Appeals are disposed of accordingly." 6. Following the aforesaid judgments, the demands relating to the first issue is set-aside and it should be restricted, on the second issue to the normal period of limitation. In the result, the impugned orders are modified and the appeals are disposed of as above. ( Dictated and pronounced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
