TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ST/50151/2019-ST[DB] Show Cause Notice(s) (SCN) Issue vide F. No.DL/ST/AE/INQ/Gr.1(2)/ 83/09 Pt.08 dated 18.06.2013 (i)No.160/Div-I/ST/2013-14 Dated 21.05.2014; (ii) No.01/Div-I/ST/2013-14 Dated 31.03.2015 Order-in-Original No.10/AKJ/ST-I/2015 dated 30.01.2015 No. Adjudication/ KRM/Div-CP/06/2018 dated 28.02.2018 Order-in Appeal No. 228/Central Tax / Appl-II/ Delhi/2018 dated 22.06.2018. Relevant Period 16.05.2008 to 31.03.2012 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2014 Demand Rs.1,45,27,903/- under proviso to section 73(I) of the Finance Act, 1994 ("Act") Rs.70,21,804/- under Section 73(I) of the Act 2. The facts in brief relevant for the present adjudications are as follows:- The appellants are engaged in supplying the Aircr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the appellant is engaged in chartering of its Aircraft and is charging the customers for the same on hourly basis referred to as flying hours. Just like a regular flight passenger manifest etc. are being issued by the appellant for the journeys undertaken by their service recipients. Hence, the service rendered by them is the taxable service of transportation of passengers by air which came into tax net with effect from 1st July, 2010. Hence, part demand in appeal No.51788 of 2015 is not maintainable. With effect from 01.07.2010, since the liability has been discharged by the appellant the demand is not sustainable. It is further submitted that the impugned Show Cause Notice has been issued by in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered vide the said decision. It has been held that the hospitality industry while providing Aircraft on chartered hire basis alongwith trained Pilot and necessary engineering crew for its operation and charging consideration on the basis of per hour for total time consumed during the Flight are held to have rendered services classifiable as supply of tangible goods service as different from transportation of passenger by air service. Impressing upon no infirmity in the order under challenge and alleging that the appellant was well aware of his liability still have failed to discharge the same, it is mentioned that extended period has rightly been invoked. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 6. Ld. Counsel has conceded the decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liability. Hence, we do not see any reason to reject the stand taken by the appellants of having a bonafide belief. Nothing is produced by the Department to prove the malafide intent on part of the appellant to evade the tax liability. The mere allegation will not be sufficient for the Department to invoke the extended period of limitation. We also observe that whenever the appellants were enquired and some documents were demanded from them, they had co-operated the Department. In such circumstances, we hold that there is no element of suppression or malafide intention on the part of the appellant. Extended period is, therefore, held to have been wrongly invoked. We rely upon the following decisions:- a) Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. Commis....