TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od limitation and no penalty is imposable on the Appellants. Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to compute the demand- appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/397/2010-DB, ST/591/2010-DB, ST/592/2010-DB, ST/486/2010-DB, ST/593/2010-DB, ST/594/2010-DB, ST/621/2010-DB, ST/631/2010-DB, ST/85/2011-DB, ST/328/2011-DB, ST/341/2011-DB, ST/641/2011-DB, ST/643/2011-DB,ST/86/2011-DB, ST/631/2011-DB, - A/13936-13964/2017 - Dated:- 27-12-2017 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) ST/632/2011-DB, ST/ 55/2012-DB, ST/56/2012-DB, ST/62/2012-DB, ST/71/2012-DB, ST/106/2012-DB, ST/122/2012-DB, ST/123/2012-DB, ST/305/2012-DB, ST/306/2012-DB, ST/369/2012-DB, ST/396/2012-DB, ST/10409/2013, ST/13531/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness Auxiliary Service, accordingly, leviable to service tax, demand notice was issued for recovery of the service tax with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order they filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. Facts are similar in nature in case of other appellants also. 3. The Ld. Advocate Sh. Dixit for the appellant submitted that the appellant has entered into contract with airlines for the purpose of booking of air tickets and the appellant earns commission for this purpose from the airlines and discharge appropriate service tax on the category of air travel agent service. As per the airline company rules, separately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Jetlite (India) Ltd. Vs CCE New Delhi - 2011 (21) STR 119 (Tri. Del) held that without acting any promotional service an income received cannot fall under the scope of BAS. Also referring to the clarification issued by the TRU bearing No.334/8/2016-17-TRU dated 29.02.2016, the Ld. Advocate submitted that there was confusion relating to levy of service tax on use of CRS system and by the said circular, the confusion has been removed. Also, the issue involved is interpretation of pure question of law, hence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked nor penal provision is attracted for non-payment of service tax. The Advocates appearing for other Appellants more or less repeated the same arguments. 5. Ld. AR for the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -appellants has rightly been covered under the heading Business Auxiliary Service as defined under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. Thus, we are of the view that the assessee-appellants being providing Tour Operator s Service , the commission received by them is for Business Auxiliary Service under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the assessee-appellants is not applicable in the instant case as the same was dealing with the advertising agencies. So, on the facts, the ratio laid down in the said case is not applicable to the present case. 6. Needless to mention that in the Central Excise, Customs Service Tax Budget, 2016-17 (published by the Legal Matrix Publications, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
