TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances are classifiable, as Supply of Tangible Goods Services which are in tax net since 16.05.2008. Admittedly, the appellant was not discharging its liability since 16.05.2008. However, w.e.f. 01.07.2010 the tax liability has regularly been discharged however considering the impugned services as that of transportation of passengers by air. Simultaneously, it is observed that in the light of the EIH LIMITED VERSUS C.C.E., DELHI-I [ 2018 (9) TMI 921 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , the appellant was liable to pay the service tax w.e.f. 16.05.2008 but the said demand has been raised vide the Show Cause Notice dated 18.06.2013 i.e. by invoking the extended period of limitation. It is the case of the appellant that they were under the bonafide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST/51788/2015-ST[DB] ST/50151/2019-ST[DB] Show Cause Notice(s) (SCN) Issue vide F. No.DL/ST/AE/INQ/Gr.1(2)/ 83/09 Pt.08 dated 18.06.2013 (i)No.160/Div-I/ST/2013-14 Dated 21.05.2014; (ii) No.01/Div-I/ST/2013-14 Dated 31.03.2015 Order-in-Original No.10/AKJ/ST-I/2015 dated 30.01.2015 No. Adjudication/ KRM/Div-CP/06/2018 dated 28.02.2018 Order-in Appeal No. 228/Central Tax / Appl-II/ Delhi/2018 dated 22.06.2018. Relevant Period 16.05.2008 to 31.03.2012 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of service tax to the Government Exchequer. The said proposal has been confirmed vide the order as tabulated above. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard Mr. B.L. Narasimhan learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Harshvardhan, ld. Authorised Representative for the Department. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the appellant is engaged in chartering of its Aircraft and is charging the customers for the same on hourly basis referred to as flying hours. Just like a regular flight passenger manifest etc. are being issued by the appellant for the journeys undertaken by their service recipients. Hence, the service rendered by them is the taxable service of transportation of passenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESTAT, New Delhi. 5. Ld. Authorised Representative while rebutting the submissions has brought to the notice decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. EIH Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I reported in 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 592 (Tri.-Delhi) to impress upon that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered vide the said decision. It has been held that the hospitality industry while providing Aircraft on chartered hire basis alongwith trained Pilot and necessary engineering crew for its operation and charging consideration on the basis of per hour for total time consumed during the Flight are held to have rendered services classifiable as supply of tangible goods service as different from transportation of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed period of limitation. It is the case of the appellant that they were under the bonafide belief that the services rendered by them are transportation of passengers by air service which was not taxable prior to 01.07.2010. It is also very much apparent that beyond this date the appellants are regularly discharging their service tax liability. Hence, we do not see any reason to reject the stand taken by the appellants of having a bonafide belief. Nothing is produced by the Department to prove the malafide intent on part of the appellant to evade the tax liability. The mere allegation will not be sufficient for the Department to invoke the extended period of limitation. We also observe that whenever the appellants were enquired and some do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
