9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .G. Chacko, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri P.C. Anand, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri V. V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the Commissioner has demanded service tax of over Rs. 93 lakhs along with education cess of over Rs. 1.4 lakhs from the appellants for the period 1-7-2005 to 30-9-2006 and has also imposed on them penalties. Service Tax of Rs. 16,22,329/-, education cess of Rs. 32,541/- and interest of Rs. 15,915/- were paid during the course of investigations, a fact noted in the Commissioner's order. The impugned demand is under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services'. More precisely, it is on an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem from their clients [cargo owners] over and above the price paid to the airlines for accommodating cargo in the latter's aircrafts operating international flights. In his rejoinder, the learned Consultant submits that, it was pursuant to a direction issued by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that the DGST issued the above order. It is further pointed out that the Hon'ble High Court had subsequently withdrawn its direction and therefore the DGST's order cannot have the force of law and, for that matter, cannot have any bearing on the Department's allegation of suppression levelled against the appellants. In this connection, reference has been made to Stay Order No. 354/2008, dated 5-5-2008 [2008 (11) S.T.R. 471 (Tribunal)], passed by this Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion by the airlines to the appellants that the appellants were treated by the airlines as commission agents. The question now is whether the amount collected by them from their clients [cargo owners] as consideration for arranging space in aircrafts belonging to the airlines is exigible to service tax to the extent such amount is over and above the amount paid by them to the airlines for such space. The appellants have not made out prima facie case against the demand of service tax on this differential amount. As a matter of fact, they paid the tax along with education cess and interest for the normal period. Coming to the plea of limitation, we are not impressed with the argument made by the learned Consultant on the basis of the DGST's or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
