Tribunal grants relief in service tax case, orders pre-deposit. The Tribunal granted relief to the appellant in the case concerning service tax demands related to outbound tours, booking of air tickets for overseas ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tribunal grants relief in service tax case, orders pre-deposit.
The Tribunal granted relief to the appellant in the case concerning service tax demands related to outbound tours, booking of air tickets for overseas clients, advertisement agency service, CRS/GDS income, and denial of abatement. The Tribunal found the demands unsustainable based on various judgments and ordered a pre-deposit for one of the demands. The appellant was directed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement within four weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed. Recovery of the remaining liability was stayed pending appeal, and any amount already paid towards the demand would be considered part of the pre-deposit.
Issues: Stay application against service tax demand confirmed in order-in-original.
Outbound tours: The appellant argued that the demand related to outbound tours is unsustainable, citing a favorable judgment by CESTAT in the case of Cox & Kings India Ltd. The Tribunal found the demand not sustainable based on the precedent.
Booking of air tickets for overseas clients: The appellant contended that the demand for booking air tickets for overseas clients is not sustainable as the service was rendered abroad, supported by a judgment in the case of CST Vs. B.A. Research India Ltd. The Tribunal agreed, considering the service as export of service and hence not liable to service tax.
Advertisement agency service: The demand concerning advertisement agency service had already been paid by the appellant, which was acknowledged.
CRS/GDS income: Regarding the demand related to CRS/GDS income, the appellant referred to a Bombay High Court decision in the case of M/s Riya Travel and Tours (I) Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal decided to follow the precedent and ordered a 25% pre-deposit of the demand for one year.
Denial of abatement: The appellant argued that the demand arising from the denial of abatement due to taking Cenvat credit was not sustainable as the credit was reversed monthly. The Tribunal found the case covered by the CESTAT decision in the case of M/s Punj Lloyd Ltd. and ordered a pre-deposit of Rs. 4.5 crores.
The Tribunal ordered the pre-deposit within four weeks, stating it would meet the statutory requirements. Compliance was to be reported by a specified date, and recovery of the remaining liability was stayed pending appeal. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal. Any amount already paid towards the demand would be considered part of the pre-deposit. Additionally, a miscellaneous application for early hearing was disposed of.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
