TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....show-cause notice was issued to them on 04.06.2012 demanding service tax of Rs.50,04,332/- for the period from April 2010 to March 2011 and another show-cause notice was issued on 18.10.2012 demanding service tax of Rs.59,73,706/- for the period from April 2011 to March 2012. On adjudication, the demands were confirmed with interest and penalty. Hence, the present appeals. 3. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the taxable service as defined under Section 65(105)(n) of the Finance Act, 1994 means 'any service provided or to be provided to any personal by a 'tour operator in relation to a tour'. In the present case, no doubt the services rendered by the appellant fall within the scope of definition of 'Tour Operator Service'; however, the same had been rendered to Indian nationals in relation to foreign tours; therefore, the services provided by the appellant be treated as Export of Services since covered under Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005. Referring to the provisions of Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005, he has submitted that Clause (c) of the said Rule makes it clear that services separately mentioned in subrule (1)(i)(ii)(i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other submissions put forth by the appellant before him. It is manifestly clear that the appellant had performed the taxable service outside India and the condition of receiving payments in foreign currency is not applicable to taxable services mentioned under subrule (1)(ii) of Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005. The Indian tourist should have paid the consideration to the appellant in foreign currency towards the tour of foreign country as interpreted by the adjudicating authority leads to absurdity as country would not gain any foreign exchange. 4. In support, he has referred to the judgment of Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cox & Kings India Ltd. and Others vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi: 2014 (35) STR 817 (Tri.-Del.). The said judgment was appealed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; however, it was dismissed on the ground of delay. He submits that this issue is no more res integra and stands covered in favour of the appellant; except for ticket booking, which falls under the taxable category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' and the demand is not disputed by the appellant. He has submitted that for the previous period October 2007 to March 2009....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... binding precedent. Further, the learned AR submitted that even though the earlier notices were issued to the appellant on the same issue, however, extended period of limitation is applicable; and for the demands pertaining to the period April 2010 to March 2011 as the appellant had suppressed the correct value of the services rendered in their ST-3 Returns when compared to their balance sheet for the said financial year; therefore, the Commissioner was justified in invoking and confirming the extended period of limitation. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. The limited issue for consideration in both the appeals is, whether outbound international tours service provided to Indian tourist by the appellant as a tour operator is leviable to service tax under the category of 'Tour Operator Service' as defined under Section 65(105)(n) of the Finance Act, 1994. 8. The principal contention of the appellant in the present appeals is that since the Indian tourists are visiting outside the territory of India in receiving the tour services, even though the consideration is not paid in convertible foreign exchange, the use of services are outside the territorial limits of India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acing reliance on the interpretation of the Principal Bench relied upon by the appellant. All the issues in the appeal as well as the order impugned therein will have to be decided on merits. 48. The referral bench at Mumbai also sought opinion of larger bench on the provision of service by appellant within the taxable territory. As seen from the facts of the case, the dispute in its entirety pertains to the period prior to April 2011. The then prevailing regime of tax on services was limited to enumerated activities rendered to a person (or designated recipient) by a person and there was no requirement for determining "taxable territory" for levy of tax; as long as both receiver and provider were in India, such services were taxable. With the transition in July 2012 to "negative list", lacking identifiable activities to be taxed, the framework of levy was to be expressed as provision of service for another within "taxable territory" for default liability in the hands of provider of service. Therefore, in the dispute before the division bench, geographical significance was not "taxable territory", which could be situated anywhere in the world according to the nature of act....