TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). These appeals being interconnected and involving common issues, are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The relevant facts are that the Appellant is registered service tax provider of air travel agency service. During audit, on verification of the profit and loss accounts of the Appellant, it was noticed that the Appellant had collected visa and documentation charges from travellers/business entities towards obtaining visa for travel to Saudi Arabia, through the authorized agents of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Mumbai. The Department was of the view that the Appellant by acting on behalf of an intending traveller and enabling him to obtain visa from the Saudi embassy through the authorized agent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld the orders in original while setting aside the penalties imposed under Section 77 of the Act. Aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred this Appeal. 4. Shri R. Viswanathan, Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing for the Appellant, contended that the Appellate Authority has erred in not considering para 3 of CBEC Circular 137/06/2011-ST dated 24.11.2011 which specifically provided that visa facilitators are out of the definition of business auxiliary services. Ld. Consultant argued that the Appellant provides the service directly to the passengers for a fee and as a visa facilitator providing visa assistance directly to the individuals. It was emphasised that the Appellant is not acting on behalf of embassy. It was also submitted that Notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellant is providing the service through the authorized agent of the embassy, it cannot be considered that the Appellant is rendering the service directly to the individuals and is therefore acting as an intermediary. It is submitted that in both the decisions relied on, the Appellants therein provided services as a visa facilitator directly to the visa seekers and is therefore distinguishable. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. The sole issue that arises for consideration is the Service Tax liability on the appellant for the amount received as income/commission charged by him for rendering the services of obtaining visa. 8. Indisputably, the Appellant provides service to the passen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., to individuals directly, for processing of visa applications. 2. The same has been examined. Assistance provided by a visa facilitator, for obtaining visa, to a visa applicant or for foreign employer does not fall within the scope of supply of manpower service. Visa facilitators, while providing visa assistance directly to individuals does not act on behalf of the embassies, as agents of the principal and hence service tax is not leviable within the meaning of business auxiliary service. Also where the assistance is rendered to an individual directly, by a visa facilitator, and the visa applicant pays the service charge on his own (meaning such service charge is not borne by any business entity), the same cannot be considered as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....business entity on behalf of those individuals, to the visa facilitator, in which case, service tax is leviable under 'business support service'. 5. Trade Notice/Public Notice may be issued to the field formations accordingly." 7. It can be seen from the above reproduced circular that the issue is now squarely settled by Board's circular. 8. In view of this, impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed." (emphasis supplied) 9. We also notice that in the decision in Globe Forex & Travels Ltd v. CCE, Jaipur-I, 2015 (37) STR 513 (Tri-Del) the Principal Bench of the Tribunal has held as under: "6. As regards, the demand of service tax on the amount charged for arranging visa for their clients, w....