TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entative (DR) - for the Respondent. ORDER Per. S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 15/10/2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Service Tax, New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with Service Tax department for providing the taxable service namely, Air Travel Agents Services. During the course of investigation, the dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x demand of Rs. 14,47,369/- alongwith interest was confirmed against the appellant. Besides penalties were imposed under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 15/10/2010 has uphold the adjudged demand. Hence, the present appeal is before the Tribunal. 3. Shri A.K. Batra, learned Consultant appearing for the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) reported in 2002 (27) S.T.R. 526 (Commr. Appl). Thus, the learned Consultant submits that since the issue was not free from doubt regarding levy of service tax on CRS services, the charges of suppression of facts cannot be levied against the appellant and accordingly, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoke for confirmation of the service tax demand. In this context, the learned Consu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....). 4. On the other hand, Shri Ranjan Khanna, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that since the identical issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in the case of D. Pauls (supra), the authorities below are justified in confirming the service tax demand against the present appellant. 5. Heard both the sides an....