9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... barred by limitation as the Department has wrongly invoked the longer period by alleging suppression whereas the issue involves pure interpretation and in such circumstances, invoking extended period of limitation is not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/711/2012-DB; ST/20984/2017 - Final Order No. 20876-20877/2019 - Dated:- 22-10-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER For the Appellant : DPV ASSOCIATES SRI RANGA For the Respondent : Mr. K. Murali Superintendent (AR) ORDER Appellants have filed these two appeals against the impugned order dated 30.12.2011 and 23.2.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rator Services and ₹ 9.94 lakh under the service category i.e., Business Auxiliary Service as service tax along with interest and penalty. Vide the Order dated 30.12.2011, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of ₹ 5,83,721/- as tax under Tour Operator Service , ₹ 9,94,583/- was demanded as tax under Business Auxiliary Service . The appellant do not dispute about the demand of service tax on Tour Operator Service . In the present appeals, the appellant has contested the demand of service tax on Business Auxiliary Services only. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also barred by limitation because the period involved is from April 2004 to March 2005 whereas show-cause notice was issued on 20.9.2007. He further submitted that since it was an issue relating to interpretation of the service, and therefore, suppression of fact cannot be alleged. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Tribunal and by the Hon ble High of Kerala in the case of CCE vs. Shabeer Travels reported in 2011 (24) STR 171 (Ker.) wherein the Hon ble High Court of Kerala in para 2 has held as u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. However, it is for the appellant to assess and levy tax for the travel agency service carried on by the respondent as well as by M/s. Akbar Travels. However, the standing counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to prove the claim of the respondent. Neither the respondent has taken any registration nor remitting any tax. It is only the failure on the part of the appellant because, the Tribunal had given freedom to the appellant to recover tax from the respondent for the travel agency service. Since the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Shabeer Travels cited supra, by following the ratio of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
