2019 (10) TMI 891

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s identical, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. The details of both the appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. Period Service Tax Penalty ST/00711/2012 April 2007 to March 2008 Rs. 9,94,583/- - ST/20984/2017 April 2004 to March 2005 Rs. 5,49,059/- Rs. 10,000/- u/s 77(1) Rs. 10,000/- u/s 77(2) Rs. 5,49,059/- u/s 78 2. Facts of Appeal No.ST/711/2012 are taken up for discussion. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are operating buses for several years in and around the State of Karnataka. The appellant booked the bus tickets of other transport operators too, for a commission agreed upon by such transport operators. The Commissioner of Service....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... more res integra and has been settled in the case of Shabeer Travels vs. CCE, Cochin: 2007 (8) STR 494 and in the appellant's own case reported in 2009 (14) STR 659 wherein this Tribunal has held that the Department's contention to tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service' is bad in law and not sustainable. He further submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shabeer Travels was not accepted by the Department and the Department filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala and subsequently, the High Court of Kerala has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Learned counsel also submitted that it is a settled law that there cannot be any adjudication by proposing taxation under one service category in show-cause notice and att....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....kets and making arrangements for travel of passengers under agreement with a well-known travel agency, M/s. Akbar Travels. For services rendered, respondent is paid commission, mainly by Akbar Travels. The Tribunal on facts, found that the service rendered by the respondent is essentially travel agency service as agents of the main travel agency, M/s. Akbar Travels. In the eye of the Tribunal, the respondent assessee is engaged in travel agency business. We do not think that the respondent could be assessed under business auxiliary service. Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the respondent has taken the issues for payment of tax for the travel agency service and in fact, excess tax paid is refunded by the Department. In the circ....