9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the instance case is for demand of Service tax of Rs. 6,45,784/- on account of taxable airport services and passenger service fee. 3. After hearing Shri Akhil Gupta and Shri Ranjan Khanna and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that identical issue has came up before the Tribunal in the case of Royal Jordanian Airlines & others Vs. CST, Delhi dated 10.11.2017 where it was observed as under: 7. Regarding the reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision in Air Canada, we note in the said order, the Tribunal though in principle agreed to the proposition of the appellant regarding non-tax liability dismissed the appeal as they failed to submit the supporting evidence as specifically sought for by the Bench. This ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Continental Airlines Vs. CST, New Delhi (supra). Moreover, as per the exemption Notification No. 12/2010 dated 12/02/2010, statutory taxes charged by any government on Air passengers would be excluded from the taxable value for the purpose of levy of tax and therefore, the service tax is not payable by the appellant". 8. In view of the consistent ratio followed by the Tribunal with reference to this dispute (PSF and other taxes), we note that the impugned orders are not sustainable and the same are set aside." 4. In view of the above, issue is settled in favour of the respondent. 5. Next issue relates to levy of penalty on demand of service tax which was paid during the course of investigation. The issue came up before the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was held that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, otherwise there would be no situation for which ordinary limitation period would apply. Inadvertent non-payment is to be met within the normal limitation period and the burden is on Revenue to prove allegation of wilful misstatement. The onus is not on the assessee to prove its bona fides. In the case of CCE v. Chemphar Drugs Liniments [2002-TIOL-266-SC-CX = 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.)], the Supreme Court held that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the assessee or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when assessee knew otherwise, is required before it is saddled with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
