9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or promoting/supporting their business activities relating to booking of cargo, preparing of bills, realization of payments etc. on behalf of the concerned Airlines and gets commission and other consideration for providing such services. The Department has interpreted that the services provided by the appellant should fall under the taxable category of Business Auxiliary Service. Accordingly, after issuance of show cause notice, the original authority vide order dated 25.10.2013 has confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 25,66,882/- alongwith interest. Besides, penalties were also imposed under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the adjudication order to the extent of reducing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax on commission and other amounts received from the service recipient M/s. Air India/ Indian Airlines under the taxable category of Business Auxiliary Service, is no more res integra, in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Patel Air Freight (supra), wherein it has been held that the commission received from the Airlines for providing services connected with air cargo, is liable for service tax under the category of BAS. 7. However, on perusal of the case records, we find that the authorities below have not specifically discussed the issue regarding the involvement of the appellant in the activities, concerning fraud, collision, suppression etc., in defrauding the Government Revenue. Thus, in absence of the ingredients men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that this Tribunal in the case of Birds Travels (P) Ltd. and also Patel Air Freight (Supra) has dropped the serviced tax demand raised for the extended period under the identical situation. 9. In view of above, since, the period involved in this case is from 2006-07 to 2010-11 and the show cause notice was issued on 21.10.2011, without any proper substantiation with regard to fulfilment of the ingredients contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73, we are of the considered opinion that part of the adjudged demand is barred by limitation of time. Thus, for quantifying the adjudged demand within the normal period, the matter should go back to the original authority. 10. Therefore, after setting aside the impugned order, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
