9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as international travellers. The appellant is also functioning as General Sales Agent (GSA) for Foreign Airlines, namely, HANNAIR, S.N. Brussels and Iceland Air and paying service tax in respect of booking made by the appellant as International Air Transport Association Agent (IATA). The Department entertained a view that the GSA Commission received from the said airlines is liable to service tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' as the appellant is promoting and marketing the services provided by the Foreign/International Airlines. On these allegations, the show cause notice dated 15.03.2010 was issued and after following due process, the original authority vide its order dated 21.07.2011 confirmed the demand alongwith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on as per section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 maybe invoked and penalty under Section 78 of the Act may be imposed but the Tribunal dismissed the Department's Appeal vide Final Order No. 52656-52659/2016 dated 28.06.2016. * He further submitted that even if it is accepted that the appellant provided Business Auxiliary Service, the service tax is not payable as the beneficiaries of the services provided by the appellant were Foreign Airlines who do not have offices in India and the payment of the GSA commission was received in foreign exchange. Hence, the services rendered by the appellant would amount to export of services. * He further submitted that the Tribunal in the appellant's own three cases for the periods July 2003 to march ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt dismissed the appeal as not pressed for. * Ld. Consultant further prayed that the present appeal should also be disposed of by relying earlier Final Order dated 28.07.2016 disposing three appeals of the appellant passed by the Principal Bench, CESTAT Delhi. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the records, I find that the appellant filed above stated four appeals before the Tribunal but the Tribunal vide its Final Order dated 28.07.2016 disposed of three appeals only and the present appeal could not be tagged with the earlier appeals as the same was transferred to the CESTAT, Chandigarh for disposal. 5. Further, I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice that is sought to be taxed is the service provided to the person paying for the service and not the service which is provided to a person in India who is not paying for the service thought he may be beneficiary of such arrangement. Here, in the present case the admitted facts are that the business of foreign airlines are promoted by BTPL. If such airlines do not have any office/establishment in India and consideration is paid in convertible foreign currency, we find BTPL are not liable to service tax under BAS as services are covered by export. Reference can also be made to Tribunal's decision in GAP International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (37) S.T.R. 757 (Tri.-Del.). It was held that service tax, though levied on commercial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
