TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on account of aviation income but service tax on the same has not been paid resulting into non-payment of Rs.5.13 crore of service tax by the appellant. Despite being specifically asked, the appellant is alleged to have failed to provide unit wise and year wise information in respect of amount received as aviation income by the appellant or by its other unit at Delhi and the service tax, if any, paid. Due to the lack of evidence, it was opined that the appellant has not shown the whole taxable amounts received/receivables by it as aviation income in respect of service "by airport authority or by any other person, in any airport or a civil enclave" and "transport of goods by aircraft" provided or agreed to be provided by the appellant during the impugned period. Thus, it is alleged that service tax has not been paid by the appellant. Resultantly vide Show Cause Notice No. 17146 dated 21.10.2015 was issued and service tax amounting to Rs.7,47,14,140/- was proposed to be recovered along with the proportionate interest and the appropriate penalties. The said proposal has been confirmed vide the Order-in-Original No. 054/2017 dated 09.11.2017. Being aggrieved the appellant is before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....how cause notice (SCN), thus SCN is outcome of presumption. Those documents have not been considered even by the adjudicating authority. The service tax on the impugned activity has otherwise been discharged by the Delhi unit of the appellant. The same has been categorically recorded by the adjudication authority as well. However, the C.A. Certificate dated 10.03.2016 filed by the appellant in its support has been misread by the adjudicating authority. Learned counsel has also objected that demand has been confirmed under two different categories of service for one single activity. Learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: (i) BCC Contractors & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commr. Of S.T., Delhi-I reported as 2022 (65) GSTL 366 (Tri.-Delhi) (ii) Micromatic Grinding Technologies Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Ghaziabad, reported as 2019 (8) TMI 320 - CESTAT Allahabad (iii) Shubham Electricals Vs. CST & ST, Rohtak, reported as 2015 (6) TMI 786 - CESTAT New Delhi affirmed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. Commissioner, Service Tax-Delhi Vs. Shubham Electricals, reported as 2016 (5) TMI 1055 - Delhi High Court. 3.2 Finally, it is impressed upon that show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Raigarh. The another unit of M/s. JSPL is in Delhi having a separate service tax registration. (iii) M/s. JSPL Delhi has obtained a Non Scheduled Operator Permit (NSOP) from the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to provide services by way of chartering the aircrafts owned by M/s. JSPL Delhi itself but retaining the control and possession of said craft with them. (iv) It is on record that M/s. JSPL, Delhi has discharged its service tax liability of Rs.6,65,23,231/- on the amount as has been received for the period April 2010 to March 2013 from the income received for the said activity of chartering the aircrafts. (v) JSPL Delhi in another arrangement of Dry Leasing has subleased its aircraft to the sub-lessee vide agreements dated 02.01.2006 where the effective control and possession of the aircraft was transferred to sub-lessee. (vi) M/s. JSPL being a body corporate, a consolidated balance sheet is prepared including the transactions undertaken at both Raigarh and Delhi Units with respect to both kinds of transactions under "aviation income". 6. It is the plea of the appellant that the amount as has been picked up by the department fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution and thus is excluded from the charge of service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) and Section 66B of the Act. Thus, it becomes clear that the income earned by M/s. JSPL, Delhi from dry leasing arrangements is not chargeable to service tax during the relevant period but value for this activity is included in the impugned amount. 9. In the given circumstances, it was mandatory for the department as well as the adjudicating authority to take note of the bifurcation which was provided by the appellant at very initial stage of filing reply to the show cause notice and also the C.A. Certificate dated 10.03.2016 filed subsequently. Since these relevant documents have been ignored by the authorities and we do not find any other evidence to show that the total amount shown in the balance sheets for the impugned period from April 2010 to March 2013 on which the service tax amounting to Rs.7,47,14,140/- has been confirmed against the appellant was an amount towards rendering the chartering activity/the service of supplying of tangible goods. 10. We also observe that confirmation of tax demand by the Principal Commissioner, Raipur is against the app....