Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (3) TMI 376 - AT - Service Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of commission on fuel surcharge in the basic fare for service tax calculation.
2. Method of computing taxable income under section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Denial of Cenvat credit.
4. Confirmation of demand on other heads of services.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Commission on Fuel Surcharge in the Basic Fare for Service Tax Calculation:
The main dispute revolves around whether the commission received on fuel surcharge should be included in the basic fare for calculating service tax under Rule 6 (7) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant argued that only four out of seventy-three airlines paid commission on fuel surcharge, thus it should not be included in the basic fare. The Principal Commissioner did not address this issue in the impugned order. The Tribunal referenced the case of *Kafila Hospitality and Travels Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi* (2015), which clarified that the basic fare is the part of the airfare on which commission is normally paid to the air travel agent by the airlines, and not the gross fare including fuel surcharge. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Principal Commissioner to reconsider this issue, allowing both parties to present additional evidence.

2. Method of Computing Taxable Income under Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994:
The appellant contested the method adopted by the Principal Commissioner for computing taxable income under section 72, arguing that no opportunity was given to make submissions on the adopted method. The Tribunal noted that the Principal Commissioner must first decide whether the commission on fuel surcharge should be included in the basic fare. If the decision is against the appellant, the Principal Commissioner must then reconsider the taxable value determination under section 72, providing the appellant an opportunity to present their case.

3. Denial of Cenvat Credit:
The appellant argued that the denial of Cenvat credit was done without considering their submissions. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order lacked reasons and did not take into account the appellant's submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded this issue to the Principal Commissioner for a fresh examination.

4. Confirmation of Demand on Other Heads of Services:
The appellant also challenged the confirmation of demand on other heads of services, stating that it was done without any discussion or consideration of their submissions. The Tribunal found that the impugned order did not provide reasons or consider the appellant's arguments. Therefore, this issue was also remanded to the Principal Commissioner for a fresh decision.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 29 February 2016 and remanded the case to the Principal Commissioner for a fresh decision on all issues, in accordance with the observations made. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, and the Principal Commissioner was directed to pass a new order after considering the appellant's submissions and additional evidence, if any.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates