9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/S. KAFILA HOSPITALITY TRAVELS LTD. VERSUS CST, DELHI [ 2015 (1) TMI 387 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , chosen to remit the matter back to the file of the Principal Commissioner for passing a fresh order since the Bench was satisfied that the Principal Commissioner had not considered the contentions of the appellant therein that that the commission on fuel surcharge was not paid normally to the Air Travel Agents by the Airlines. Rule 6 (7) ibid. clearly gives an option to the taxpayer, specifically an Air Travel Agent, to pay an amount calculated at the rate of 0.6% of the basic fare in the case of domestic bookings and at the rate of 1.2% of the basic fare in the case of international bookings instead of paying Service Tax at the rate specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r charges in such ticket. Hence, when the basic fare is so specifically indicated, the authorities cannot add or delete anything to the same to say that the basic fare should also include those other things - Rule 6 (7) has to be read, therefore, in the context of the break-ups given in the ticket wherein the basic fare stands clearly indicated and viewed thus, the interpretation drawn by the lower authorities to include the commission on fuel surcharge in the basic fare cannot hold any water, for which reason the impugned order cannot sustain. Appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Varshitha G., Advocate for the Appellant Shri M. Ambe, Deputy C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals), Chennai, who also having not agreed with the plea of the appellant and thereby dismissing its appeal vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 151/2013 (MST) dated 21.01.2013, the appellant has assailed the same in this appeal before this forum. 3. Ms. Varshitha G., Learned Advocate, appeared for the appellant and Shri M. Ambe, Learned Deputy Commissioner, represented the respondent. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and we have gone through the orders of lower authorities and also the orders of co-ordinate Benches of the CESTAT relied upon during the course of arguments. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that the only issue to be decided by us is: whether the commission received by the appellant on the fuel surcharge is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Final Order No. 50146/2020 dated 20.01.2020) [2020-TIOL-414-CESTAT-DEL]; (iii) M/s. Japan Airlines International Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi (Final Order No. 52422/2016 dated 08.07.2016) [2016-TIOL-1930-CESTAT-DEL] 7.1 The Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Kafila Hospitality and Travels Ltd. (supra) has, after considering the rival contentions, remitted the matter back to the file of the Commissioner for de novo decision after observing as under: - 7. . . In our view, the term basic fare , in terms of its definition in Rule 6(7), is not the gross fare including fuel surcharge, but is that part of the gross airfare on which the concerned Airlines normally pay the commission to the Air Travel A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paragraphs, clearly gives an option to the taxpayer, specifically an Air Travel Agent, to pay an amount calculated at the rate of 0.6% of the basic fare in the case of domestic bookings and at the rate of 1.2% of the basic fare in the case of international bookings instead of paying Service Tax at the rate specified in Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, and as per Section 66, the rate of Service Tax was a flat 12% of the value of taxable services. Section 67 ibid. provides for the assessable value to be the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service. 8.2 What is relevant from the above is that the option is given to the taxpayer to remit the Service Tax either in terms of Rule 6 (7) ibid. or Section 67 ibid., and onc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
