Facts of the Case:

The appellant was engaged in the activity of collecting "Airport Admission Ticket Charges" on account of a licence issued by the Airport Authority of India. Revenue proceeded against the appellant on the ground that he is providing amenities and facilities to the passengers and the services rendered by him amounts to airport services and therefore they are liable to pay the service tax. The Original Authority confirmed demand of Rs. 1,67,388/-. He imposed penalty of Rs.100/- per day till the payment of dues in terms of Section 76. An amount of Rs.3,282/- was also demanded under Section 91 of the Finance Act with appropriate interest on both the demands under Section 75. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Lower Authority.

Discussions and Findings:

Honorable tribunal (CESTAT) has held that:

Just because the appellant is authorized to collect the fee and remit it to the Airport Authority of India, we cannot say that the service is provided by the appellant. Appellant is only collecting agent and whatever is collected after giving the licence fee he retains it. In this case, in our view, the actual liability is only rests with the AAI. A person who simply collects the entrance fee cannot be equated with the service provider.

(For full text of judgment - visit 2008 -TMI - 4173 - CESTAT, BANGALORE)

Collection as agent: fee collection alone does not constitute a taxable service; substantive liability stays with the licensor. An entity authorised to collect airport admission charges that remits fees to the licensor while retaining only a licence fee functions as a collecting agent; such collection, standing alone, does not constitute provision of airport services for service tax purposes, and the substantive liability for providing amenities remains with the licensor rather than the collector.