9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the category of "Airport Service" as defined under Section 65 (105) (zzm) of Finance Act, 1994. After due process of law, the original authority set aside the demand on amounts in respect of foods and beverages services. However on amounts in respect of laundry services, the original authority set aside the demand prior to 1.7.2012. The demand for the period w.e.f. 1.7.2012 (negative list) was confirmed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the original authority in setting aside the demand in respect of amount of laundry services under the category of 'Airport Services', for the period prior to 1.7.2012, the Department has filed these appeals. 2. The Ld. A.R Ms.Anandalakshmi Ganeshram appeared and argued for the Department. The definition of "Airport Services" as under Section 65 (105) (zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 was adverted to by the Ld. A.R. It is submitted that "Airport Services" means 'any service provided to any person by Airport Authority or any person authorized by it, in an airport or civil enclave'. In the present case, the airliners had assigned the work of washing the napkins/glass cloth, table cloth/trolley linen, head set cover etc. to the respondent and accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs. It is submitted that the Tribunal after referring to the Circular No.1006/13/2015-CX. dt. 21.09.2015 observed that the binding nature of circulars/instructions is applicable only to the department and that the assessee cannot rely upon such circular. 2.3 Ld. A.R also referred to the decision in the case of Western Agencies Vs CCE - 2011 (3) TMI 528 - CESTAT (LB) to submit that in the said case while stevedoring services were rendered in the port, it was held that such services would fall within the definition of "Port Service". Ld. A.R requested that appeal No.ST/40699/2017 may be allowed and other appeals may not be dismissed on monetary limits. Ld.A.R prayed for orders accordingly. 3. The Ld. Counsels Shri Raghav Rajeev and Ms. Manasa Srinivasan appeared for the respondent. The findings of the adjudicating authority was relied by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent to submit that the original authority has correctly analyzed the issue and held that the respondent is not liable to pay service tax on amounts received for laundry services for the period prior to 1.7.2012. The definition of 'Airport Service' is attracted only when the services are rendered to any person by ai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals fall within the monetary limit of appeals to be filed by the Department before Tribunal. The amount involved in each appeal is less than Rs.50 lakhs. As per the litigation policy, these appeals fall within the monetary limits. The Ld. A.R has relied upon the decision in the case of CCE and Customs, CGST Jaipur-I Vs M/s.Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The said decision has been rendered in a customs appeal. The relevant paragraphs of the decision reads as under : "6. From the above discussion, it is clear that the Instruction/Circulars are mandatory/binding vis-a-vis the Departmental Officers are concerned. However, vis-a-vis the Superior Courts including Tribunals, the objective is different. The Tribunal as well as Superior Courts have to prioritize the interest of justice. It is the mandate for the Courts to see that none shall be condemned unheard and that none shall be pre- judicially affected. The Courts/Adjudicating Authorities have to see whether any Circular/Instruction of the department is sufficient enough to fulfil the requisite interest of justice in the given set of circumstances. 7. Now reverting to the facts of the present case, we observe that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals or joint appeals shall not be entertained)." 6.1 From the above, it can be seen that the number of appeals to be filed by a litigant is not a choice but on the basis of the procedure rules. If each appeal filed by department though falls within monetary limit is to be considered on merits by clubbing the amount involved in all the appeals against a particular respondent, it would result in chaos and injustice as there would be no uniformity. 6.2 If the appeals which fall within the monetary limit and which are above the monetary limit are to be clubbed and taken together on merits only, it would be injustice to the respondent when compared to a single appeal filed by department on the same issue against another assessee in which amount involved is less than Rs.50 lakhs. To avoid such a situation, in our view, the litigation policy has to be given effect to. The decision relied upon by Ld. A.R in the case of Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is with regard to Customs law and also taking into consideration the probable fraud that might occur in such imports. There is no such situation in the present case. For these reasons, the said case is not applicable to the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f an appeal is pending in the higher appellate forum, subsequent case of the same party or other party shall not be pursued further in litigation if the case falls below the monetary limit prescribed by the Board. 4. The Instructions mentioned above used the word "case". However, the same was not defined. The term "case" needs to be interpreted in the context of National Litigation Policy which aims at reduction of litigation. In respect of a composite order which disposes of more than one appeal/SCN and the Department contemplates filing of appeal, every appeal would be a "case" and should be subjected to the threshold limit prescribed. To illustrate, if the Tribunal passes one composite order disposing of more than one appeal filed before it, and if the Department being aggrieved is required to file more than one appeal against the said Tribunal order, then each appeal shall be subject to the monetary limit prescribed. 5. There is no change in the monetary limits prescribed by the Board. 6. The above clarification may be taken note of while processing appeals before the Tribunal and Courts. Difficulties faced, if any, may be brought to the notice of the Board." 7.1 We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the D.O.F. No. 334/1/2010-TRU, dated 26-2-2010, wherein the explanation of the airport services before amendment thereto and after amendment was given as under : The definitions of the taxable services, namely the "Airport Services section 65(105)(zzm), the '.Port Services' section 65(105)(zn) and the 'Other Port Services' section 65(105)(zzl) are being amended to provide that - (a) all services provided entirely within the airport/port premises would fall under these services, and (b) an authorization from the airport/port authority would not be a precondition for taxing these services. From the above explanation of D.O.F., it became clear that prior to definition of "Airport Services" in the Finance Bill, 2010, the services provided by any person in the airport by authorization of Airport Authority was covered under the definition of "Airport Services". However, subsequent to amendment the scope of airport services was enlarged and post amendment, service provided, whether it is by authorization or otherwise, covered under the definition of "Airport Services." This clarification makes it clear that prior to amendment, if a person provides the services in the Airport, it m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the airport. This has been clarified vide letter D.O.F. No. 334/1/2010-TRU, dated 1-7-2010. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellants succeeds. 10. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the appeal filed by M/s. Soft Touch Aviation allowed." From the above findings, it can be seen that the ld. Commissioner has correctly interpreted the definition of "Airport Services" and held that the services rendered by the respondent are not on behalf of the airport authority or authorized by airport authority. 6.3 We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, hence the same is upheld. 6.4 The Revenue's appeal is dismissed." 10. The reliance placed by the Ld. A.R in the case of Western Agencies (supra), in our view, is misconceived and misplaced. In the said case, the issue was with regard to 'port services'. The contention raised by the assesse therein was that the stevedoring services provided by them is for a minor port which is not covered under Major Ports Act and therefore is not liable to pay service tax. The Tribunal observed that the definition in the Finance Act, 1994 does not make a distinction between 'major port' and 'minor port'. The wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
