TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of Service Tax, Delhi-I [the Principal 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: Per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....various services while rendering the output services it availed CENVAT credit of service 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,11,83,803 41,34,017 1,12,54,892 2,65,72,212 Less: demand dropped in respect of CENVAT Credit - - 78,58,569 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2006 [2006 Rules] and if rule 3(ii) of the said Rules had been examined, demand could not have been confirmed under the reverse charge mechanism. 15. It is true that the Principal 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xt that the Noticee failed to produce corroborative/supporting documents (Attached as Annexure-I), we had drawn your attention to all the letters during investigations where no such information was ever sought but 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the appellant had not produced all the invoices of all the service providers. It is, therefore, appropriate that the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to permit the appellant to produce the records so that a fresh order on this aspect can be passed after examination of the documents. CONCLUSION 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the demand of service tax under issue No. II is set aside. As regards, issue No. I, the demand for the period from 1.04.2008 to 15.05.2008 is set aside. However, the adjudicating authority shall examine whether the appellant had paid service tax under the category of transport of passengers by air services and in case such tax had been paid, to appropriate the same. Regarding Issue No. ....