Travel agent incentives from airlines ruled as air travel services not business auxiliary service

CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order demanding service tax under business auxiliary service (BAS) on various incentives and service charges. The tribunal held that incentives from airlines/CRS companies for ticket sales constitute air travel agent services, not BAS, following the Kafila Hospitality precedent. Service charges for visa consultation, incentives from insurance companies, foreign exchange brokers, and miscellaneous receipts were also ruled outside BAS scope as the appellant was not involved in promotion/marketing activities. CENVAT credit denial based on incorrect address on invoices was deemed a procedural defect insufficient to deny legitimate credit where service receipt and payment were undisputed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-payment of service tax under 'business auxiliary service' (BAS) on incentives received from Central Reservation System (CRS) Companies and Airlines.
2. Non-payment of service tax under BAS on service charges received for visa consultation.
3. Non-payment of service tax under BAS on incentives received from Mediclaim Insurance Companies.
4. Non-payment of service tax under BAS on incentives received from Foreign Exchange brokers.
5. Non-payment of service tax under BAS on incentives received from Miscellaneous Receipts.
6. Denial of CENVAT credit due to incorrect address on invoices.

Summary:

First Issue:
The issue concerns non-payment of service tax under BAS on incentives received from CRS Companies and Airlines on ticket sales. The Tribunal referred to the Larger Bench decision in *Kafila Hospitality & Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi*, which held that travel agents rendering air travel services are not promoting or marketing for airlines or CRS Companies. Consequently, the incentives received are not taxable under BAS.

Second Issue:
This issue pertains to non-payment of service tax under BAS on service charges for visa consultation. The Tribunal found that the appellant's services do not fall under BAS as they do not involve promotion, marketing, or customer care services on behalf of any client. The Tribunal cited *Good Wind Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Ahmedabad*, which held that such services are not taxable.

Third Issue:
The issue involves non-payment of service tax under BAS on incentives from Mediclaim Insurance Companies. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's activities do not fall under any BAS clauses, as they merely receive incentives from insurance companies without engaging in promotional activities. The Tribunal set aside the demand based on similar reasoning applied to visa consultation services.

Fourth Issue:
This issue relates to non-payment of service tax under BAS on incentives from Foreign Exchange brokers. The Tribunal found that the appellant's activities do not fall under BAS, as the appellant does not promote or market goods or services. The demand was set aside based on the same reasoning applied to visa consultation services.

Fifth Issue:
The issue concerns non-payment of service tax under BAS on incentives from Miscellaneous Receipts, including railway tickets, CRS Companies, and hotel accommodation. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that these services, already taxed under 'air travel agency' service, cannot be taxed again under BAS. The demand was set aside.

Sixth Issue:
This issue involves the denial of CENVAT credit due to incorrect address on invoices. The Tribunal held that mere mention of a wrong address is a procedural defect and not a valid ground to deny CENVAT credit, as long as the receipt of services and payment are not in dispute. The Tribunal cited *Toll (I) Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I* to support its decision.

Conclusion:
The impugned order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---