2023 (1) TMI 742

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hort), having its office at International Terminal, IGI Airport, New Delhi are providing various services including passenger services and are registered with Service Tax Department under 'Airport Services' etc. and were registered with the Department under Registration No. AACCD3570FST001. Prior to this on 04.04.2006, 'DIAL' entered into 'an Operation, Management and Development Agreement' (OMDA) with the Airport Authority of India, whereby 'DIAL' was granted exclusive right to operate, manage and develop the IGI Airport at New Delhi. Ministry of Civil Aviation have provided that airport operators can collect 'Passenger Service Fee' (PSF) from the embarking passenger. Further, provided that 65% of the PSF collected by the airport operator ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ttributable towards PSF (SC) has to be treated as revenue receipt in the hands of the airport operator. Thus, 'DIAL' cannot treat the amount of 'PSF (SC) Escrow account' distinct from the general revenue of the airport operator. Earlier the appellant was of the view that the amount under 'PSF (SC)' is not chargeable to income tax. The appellant was advised to file consolidated return under service tax for the half year April to September, 2010 declaring all the receipts including PSF (SC) in the hands of 'DIAL' and accordingly discharged service tax. This return was filed on 24.10.20210. As the cenvat credit was sufficient to take care of the service tax liability (consolidated credit) amount of Rs. 39,09,130/- paid by challan became excess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cenvat credit was filed by the claimant in addition to payment made through challan. As regards unjust enrichment, it is observed that 'DIAL' has debited cenvat credit account of PSF (SC), for the claim amount, in addition to the payment made through challan but failed to produce any documentary evidence of such debit entry. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order-in-appeal was pleased to reject the appeal agreeing with the finding in the order-in-original. 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 9. Assailing the impugned order, ld. Counsel for the appellant inter alia urges that it has been admitted by the Court below that the said amount of....