TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 524
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sals made in three show cause notices [SCN] issued to the appellant were decided and demands of service tax totaling Rs. 6,24,75,401/- was confirmed along with interest and penalties were imposed. The three SCNs are as follows: a) SCN dated 19.10.2011 covering the period 1.5.2006 to 31.3.2010 demanded service tax of Rs. 2,79,88,641/- on Passenger Service Fee [PSF], Admin fee and Airport Taxes. b) SCN dated 20.04.2012 covering the period 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011 demanded service tax of Rs.1,26,29,530/- on PSF, Admin fee and Airport Taxes. c) SCN dated 28.9.2012 covering the period 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012 demanded service tax of Rs. 2,18,57,410/- on Passenger Service Fee, Admin fee and Airport Taxes. 2. We have heard ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Passenger Service Fee (PSF) and Airport Taxes. In Austrian Airlines versus Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi [2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 213 (Tri. - Del.)], following several precedent decisions, it was held as follows: "3. We have considered the rival submissions made by both the sides and have also perused the record of appeal. We find that matter is no longer resintegra as several decisions on the same issue have already been passed by this Tribunal. Some of the decisions passed by this Tribunal in recent past are as given below :- (i) Austrian Airlines versus Commissioner of Service Tax [2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 344 (T)] ; (ii) Lufthansa German Airlines versus Commissioner of Service Tax [2016 (43) S.T.R. 636 (T)] ; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is submitted that this is the mandate for the members of IATA. The said compilation indicates country-wise taxes and fee to be paid by the Airlines. While we note that any amount collected from the passenger specifically identified for the particular service, to be rendered by other than the appellants, are not to be included in the gross value, it is necessary to establish with documentary evidence the background of such fee or taxes, legal term of contractual obligation to collect and pay the amount on actual basis. These documentary evidences are not forthcoming in the present appeal. Further, we also note that reliance placed by the appellant on the decided cases can be of help in the present case only when the facts are establishe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, we find that the appeal cannot be sustained due to failure to establish the facts. Accordingly, the same is dismissed." 7. The appellant is relying on Rule 6 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, which has been amended with effect from 22-2-2010 which reads as under :- "Rule 6. Cases in which the commission, costs, etc., will be included or excluded. - (2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (1), the value of any taxable service, as the case may be, does not include - (v) the taxes levied by any Government on any passenger travelling by air, if shown separately on the ticket, or the invoice for such ticket, issued to the passengers." We find that Airport Tax has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f levy of tax and therefore, the service tax is not payable by the appellant. 8. In view of the above analysis, we hold that Passenger Service Fee (PSF) and Airport Tax are not includible in the assessable value of the services provided by them. Therefore, the impugned order deserves no merit, accordingly, the same is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief". 5. In view of above, since in the case of appellant in earlier case the matter has been decided accordingly, as above, we hold that the order-in-original is without any merit and, hence, same is set aside and appeal is allowed". 6. As far as the Admin fee is concerned, learned authorised representative relies on Continental Airlines Inc. versus Commi....