Airline not liable for service tax on online database access from foreign CRS providers under Finance Act, 1994.

The appellant, an airline operating in India, was found not liable for service tax under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 for 'Online Database Access or Retrieval Service' received from foreign-based CRS service providers. The extended period of limitation and penalties imposed were deemed not applicable, leading to the appeals being allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of service tax under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 for 'Online Database Access or Retrieval Service' received from CRS service providers abroad.
2. Applicability of extended period of limitation under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Imposition of penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of Service Tax under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994:
The primary issue was whether the appellant airline, operating in India under RBI permission, was liable to pay service tax for 'Online Database Access or Retrieval Service' received from foreign-based CRS service providers on a reverse charge mechanism basis under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority held that the appellant was the recipient of the said service and thus liable to service tax. The service involved facilitating reservation and ticket availability through online systems maintained by CRS companies like Galileo, Amadeus, etc. The appellant argued that the service was provided to its head office abroad, not directly to the Indian branch. However, the adjudicating authority concluded that the service was indeed received in India by the appellant, making them liable for service tax.

2. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994:
The appellant challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation for issuing the show cause notice, arguing that they believed in good faith that they were not liable for service tax. The adjudicating authority found that the appellant had suppressed the value of taxable service and failed to file returns, justifying the extended period. The appellant's plea of bonafide belief was rejected, and the extended period was deemed applicable due to the deliberate evasion of tax.

3. Imposition of Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994:
Penalties were imposed on the appellant under sections 77 and 78 of the Act for failing to register and file returns, and for evading service tax. The appellant contended that there was no intention to evade tax and that any service tax paid would be available as Cenvat credit, making the exercise revenue-neutral. However, the adjudicating authority upheld the penalties, citing the appellant's deliberate breach of law and suppression of facts.

Separate Judgments Delivered by Judges:
- D.N. Panda (J): Upheld the adjudication order, concluding that the appellant was liable for service tax under section 66A, the extended period of limitation was applicable, and penalties were justified.
- Rakesh Kumar (T): Disagreed with the adjudication order, holding that the appellant was not the recipient of the service under section 66A, the extended period of limitation was not applicable, and penalties were not justified.

Majority Decision:
The matter was referred to a third member due to the difference in opinions. The third member agreed with the Technical Member (Rakesh Kumar), leading to the final decision that the appellant was not liable for service tax, and the extended period of limitation and penalties were not applicable. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

---