TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Commissioner]. 2. The appellant is a private limited company. During the period of dispute from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2012, the appellant was engaged in providing services relating to aviation industry and was holding a permit issued by the Directors General of Civil Aviation [DGCA] to operate non-scheduled air transport service. As a non-scheduled aircraft operator, the appellant provided travel facility by air by way of providing its aircraft on charter basis. The appellant discharged service tax liability on the consideration charged by its clients for providing transportation of passengers by air services. The details of tax paid by the appellant during the disputed period is as follows: Period Taxable Value Tax paid through CENVA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce tax paid in respect of such services under the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The department believed that the appellant had wrongly categorized the services of providing aircraft to its customers as "transport of passengers by air" instead of "supply of tangible goods for use" since the appellant had not transferred the effective control and possession of the aircraft. The department also believed that the payments made by the appellant to the foreign vendors in foreign currency were towards the repairing services availed by it, which would be taxable under 'management, maintenance or repair' services and the appellant would be liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. The department also believed that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 78,58,569 Less: Cum-Tax benefit allowed 11,17,882 - - 11,17,882 Less: ST paid by appellant; appropriated by the Department 26,07,435/- 5,93,052/- - 32,00,487 Balance Demand in Dispute 74,58,486 35,40,965 33,96,323 1,43,95,774 8. The three issues are dealt with separately: Issue No. I 9. Shri A.K. Batra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has very fairly stated that the Principal Commissioner correctly classified the services under SOTG, but what he contends is that service tax could not have been confirmed for the period 1.04.2008 to 15.05.2008 as the said service became taxable only with effect from 16.05.2008. Learned counsel also contended that the appellant had paid service tax on the consideration rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cipal Commissioner has not examined the provisions of the 2006 Rules. 16. Rule 3(ii) provides that subject to Section 66A of the Finance Act, the taxable services provided from outside India and received in India, shall, in relation to the taxable service specified in sub-clause (zzg) of section 65 (105) of the Finance Act be such services as are performed in India. 17. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is an admitted fact that the services were provided from outside India and, therefore, would not be leviable to service tax. 18. This submission deserves to be accepted. It is only in a case where such services are performed in India that they would be leviable to service tax. In the present case, it is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allegation was strangely included in the SCN. We drew your kind attention to item No. 19 (pages 372-464) of the written reply handed over to your personally then whereunder "Credit registers for the relevant period along with the invoices, on sample basis, on the basis of which credit has been availed" were incorporated. We also offered to produce the entire record, in original, for your verification, to which you assured that we shall soon be intimated when and to whom these be produced. Now more than 3 months have elapsed since the personal hearing. Neither any Adjudication Order nor any directions from your office in regard to CENVAT verification, has been received. We have been ready and willing to produce such original records....