Tribunal finds appellant liable for service tax under 'Online Information' service, normal limitation period applies

The Tribunal held the appellant liable to pay service tax under 'Online Information and Data Base Access or Retrieval Service' for services received. The extended period of limitation was deemed not applicable due to the appellant's registration and tax payments, leading to the allowance of the appeal. However, the Revenue's application was granted, confirming the demand for the normal limitation period based on statutory provisions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability of the appellant to pay service tax under the head 'Online Information and Data Base Access or Retrieval Service' (OLIDAR) with respect to service received from CRS/GDS companies.
2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation.
3. Whether penalty and interest have been rightly demanded.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Tribunal held that the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the head 'Online Information and Data Base Access or Retrieval Service' (OLIDAR) for the service received from CRS/GDS companies.

Issue 2:
Regarding the extended period of limitation, the Tribunal determined that it was not applicable as the appellant was registered with the service tax department and was paying service tax on output service. The Tribunal noted that the situation was revenue neutral as the service tax paid as a recipient of OLIDAR service was utilized for providing taxable output service, making Cenvat credit available to the appellant. The Tribunal also found that penalty and interest were not payable, and allowed the appeal based on the grounds of revenue neutrality and non-applicability of the extended period of limitation.

Issue 3:
The Revenue filed a ROM application contending that since the extended period of limitation was deemed not applicable, the demand for the normal period should have been confirmed. The Tribunal considered the Revenue's argument based on Section 73(2A) of the Finance Act, which mandates confirming the demand for the normal period if the extended period is not applicable. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws and ultimately confirmed the demand for the normal period of limitation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's ROM application, confirming the demand for the normal period of limitation, despite initially allowing the appeal on the grounds of revenue neutrality and non-applicability of the extended period of limitation. The decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions, case laws, and factual circumstances presented during the proceedings.

---