2019 (6) TMI 865

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was held that since the main service is of carrying passenger which also been includes charges for carrying of Excess Baggage from passenger, and thus is integral part of main service and also incidental to main service. Further, there is no element of transport of accompanied goods under this service in absence of separate contract carrying Excess Baggage, not covered under transport of goods by air service but by the Transport of Passenger by Air Service only - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Puneet Agarwal, Advocate - for the appellant Shri R.K. Manjhi, DR - for the respondent ORDER Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 1 Augu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... luded in the gross amount collected by service provider for rendering the Transport of Passengers by Air Services. Therefore, Department issued a Show Cause Notice dated 24.4.2012 asking them to show cause as to why an amount of ₹ 2,58,23,165/- pertaining to period October, 2006 to September, 2011 be demanded from them along with interest and imposition of penalty. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the impugned order confirming the demand raised. 2. Learned Advocate, on behalf of the appellant, submits that this issue is decided in favour of the appellant vide this Tribunal's order in case of Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I - 2014 (40) STR 1159 (Tri.-Mumbai), which has been subsequently uphel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e charges are collected separately - for the service of 'transport of passengers by Air' and for the 'levy of charges of excess baggage'. Thus, the levy of Service Tax for 'excess baggage' is not incidental and the same is separate and distinct. It is further held that two services are distinct and provided simultaneously. There is no case of a composite service, most particularly, in view of separate invoicing for the two working parts separately paid by the service receiver. 26. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the issue before the Tribunal is with respect to accompanied baggage of the passenger in the course of Air travel. I find that the carrying of baggage by the appellant Airlines is incidental to the service bei .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X