Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Atlas Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax on 15 January, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No.ST/86263, 86264, 86265/13 & ST/85222/14 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 5 to 7/ST/M-I/2012 dated 20/12/2012 & 36/SK/M-I/2013 dated 23/10/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================
Atlas Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Respondent Mumbai Appearance:
Shri.S.S.Gupta, CA for appellant Shri.B.S.Meena, Addl. Comm. (AR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 15/01/2015 Date of Decision : 15/01/2015 ORDER NO Per: M.V. Ravindran
1. All these four appeals of the same appellant are disposed of by a common order as they raise the same question of law and on the same set of facts.
2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the service tax liability that is fastened on the appellant under the category of Tour operators services. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant had conducted Outbound Tours of Haj-Umrah to Makkah and Madina, during the material period and did not discharge the service tax liability on the amounts so collected. It is also the case of the Revenue that the said activity is taxable as the amounts collected by the appellants are not in foreign currency and that the recipient of the services are from India. It is the case of the appellant that the said definition would not apply to the tour operators service, as also the services are consumed abroad, though the recipient are from India.
3. Learned CA would submit that this particular issue was argued before the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s.Cox & Kings India Ltd., Vs. CST, New Delhi 2013-TIOL-1907-CESTAT-DEL. It is his submission that the law which has been laid down by the Tribunal is that the activity of outbound tours abroad is not taxable under the tour operators services. He would submit that this ratio has been followed by the Mumbai Bench in the case of Travel Corporation (India) Ltd. Thomas Cook (India Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai 2014-TIOL-1547-CESTAT-MUM and Final Order No.21303-21306/2014 of Bangalore Bench in the case of Thomas Cook (India) Ltd.
4. Ld. DR was not able to produce any contrary decision.
5. On perusal of the records and the case laws cited by the learned CA, we find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and the judicial pronouncements, we find that the impugned orders are unsustainable and liable to set aside and we do so.
5. The impugned orders are set aside the appeals are allowed.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) pj 1 3