Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (10) TMI 506

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 2,59,195/- along with interest and penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed has been sustained. 2. The brief facts are that:- i) The appellants are rendering services of air travel agent to their customers and are registered with service tax department. ii) The appellant utilized computer reservation software provided by Galileo for booking of air tickets for their customers. iii) As there were other CRS (Computer reservation software) systems namely ABACUS and AMADUS available, M/s. Galileo paid the incentive (commission) to the appellant assessee for continued usage and patronage of M/s. Galileo's CRS system, which is also known as GDS - Global distribution system. iv) The department's stand is that the incentive (Commission) rece....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d outside India for making bookings on different travel segments. iv) There is no evidence that the appellant marketed or promoted sale of said CRS / GDS software system in India. v) There is no term in the contracts suggesting that the appellant acted as an agent of Galileo and did not conduct any activity which can be covered as business auxiliary services. 5. The Ld. DR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. After having carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of both the sides including from the document namely Galileo by Travelport; Offer to M/s. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. (who is the group to which the appellant belongs to) (Offer no. ITQPL / BOM / 022-755) it appears that M/s. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... or (ii) promotion or marketing of service provided by the client; or (iii) any customer care service provided on behalf of the client; or (iv) procurement of goods or services, which are inputs for the client; or (v) production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of the client; or (vi) provision of service on behalf of the client; or (vii) a service incidental or auxiliary to any activity specified in sub-clauses (i) to (vi), such as billing, issue or collection or recovery of cheques, payments, maintenance of accounts and remittance, inventory management, evaluation or development of prospective customer or vendor, public relation services, management or supervision, and includes services as a commission agent, but ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s are not promoting the business of the said GDS/CRS companies by booking segments using the said product. At the strength of the written submission, he also submits that the amount received from GDS/CRS cannot be treated as deemed commission. So, the amount received is not taxable as no service has been provided. This is merely an incentive. The incentive received for usage of GDS/CRS does not attract the Service Tax. There is no promotion or marketing of business of GDS/CRS service provider as ultimate customer buying air ticket is not concerned from what GDS/CRS he is being provided air ticket. The assessee-Appellants are in no way connected to the service rendered to the customers nor is billed to the customers. He also relied upon the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as defined under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. Thus, we are of the view that the assessee-Appellants being providing 'Tour Operator's Service', the commission received by them is for 'Business Auxiliary Service' under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants is not applicable in the instant case as the same was dealing with the advertising agencies. So, on the facts, the ratio laid down in the said case is not applicable to the present case. 6. Needless to mention that in the "Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax Budget, 2016-17 (published by the legal Matrix Publications, Delhi-9, on page 258)' makes a reference to High Level Committee and states that cert....