Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Emirates vs C.C.E., New Delhi on 23 November, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-DB
COURT III
Service Tax Appeal No.ST/3592/2012-ST [DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.189/ST/DLH/2012 09.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HONBLE MR. B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Emirates Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E., New Delhi Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Ms.Antra Sen, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Mr.Govind Dixit, D.R.
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HONBLE MR. B.RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 23.11.2016
FINAL ORDER NO. __55839/2016___
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 09.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi, confirming service tax demand of Rs.47,04,128/- alongwith interest and penalty on the ground that the appellant has recovered excess baggage charges from passengers, which is taxable under the service category of Transfer of Goods by Air Service defined under Section 65 (105) (zzn) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Ms. Antra Sen, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that carrying of baggage by the appellant is incidental to the service provided by it namely, Transport of Passengers by Air, which is a taxable service classified under Section 65 (105) (zzzo) ibid, on which appropriate service tax liability has been discharged by the appellant. She further submits that since excess baggage charges collected by the appellant is integral part of the above taxable service provided by the appellant, such charges collected from its customers will not be separately taxed under the category of Transport of Goods by Air Service. To support her stand that service tax cannot be demanded on excess baggage charges, the appellant has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, reported in 2015 T.I.O.L. 2329 (CESTAT-Mum.).
3 Shri Govind Dixit, the ld. D.R. appearing for the respondent reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4. Heard both sides. The issue involved in the present case for consideration by the Tribunal is, as to whether, the amount collected by the appellant from passengers on account of the excess baggage carried by it are subject to service tax under section 65 (105) (zzn) ibid.
5. We find that the issue in this case is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that the excess baggage charges collected by the Airlines are integral part of the main service namely, transportation of passengers by air and, therefore demand of service tax on such charges cannot be sustained under the taxable service defined in Section 65 (105) (zzn) (supra).
6. In view of above, we do not find any merits in the impugned order and allow the appeal in favour of the appellant.
[Operative part pronounced in the open Court)
(B. RAVICHANDRAN) (S.K. MOHANTY)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Anita
0
3