P.C.Paulose,M/S Sparkway Enterprises vs Commr.Of Cen.Exc.& Customs

3. The AAI entered into a licence agreement with the appellant by 3 which the appellant was entrusted with the responsibility and the activity of collecting airport admission ticket charges on behalf of AAI Limited at Karipur Airport, Calicut. As per the said agreement the appellant was permitted to collect Rs. 50/- per visitor as airport admission ticket charges for which the appellant was required to pay an amount of Rs. 2,66,797/- per month as licence fee.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Cochin. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, dismissed the said appeal, aggrieved by which, the appellant filed second appeal before the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short `CESTAT'], South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. The Tribunal, allowed the appeal filed by the appellant by holding that the appellant is only a collecting agent and therefore the liability to pay the service tax rest on AAI which is the actual service provider.

13. All the times during the currency of the licence agreement, it shall be the responsibility of the licensee to obtain proper fire insurance coverage including theft and burglary in respect of all the movable and immovable assets stored or used in the licensed premises and authority shall not be responsible for any loss or damage caused to the licensee on any accounts whatsoever.

5. The adjudicating authority considered the entire matter and after careful consideration of the reply of the appellant and after giving a hearing to the appellant confirmed the demand of 11 service tax of Rs. 1,64,106/- and education cess of Rs. 3,282/- with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by CESTAT, the department filed Central Excise Appeal No. 28/2008 before the Kerala High Court. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court allowed the appeal with a direction to the original authority to verify whether AAI has paid service tax on the admission tickets during the relevant period and, if in case, AAI had paid the said service tax, the appellant would stand exonerated from the liability; otherwise, service tax would be recovered from the appellant as per the provisions of the Act. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order of the High Court the present appeal was filed by the appellant on which we heard the counsel appearing for the 13 parties.

8. We have already set out the issue which falls for our consideration in the present appeal. In our opinion as to whether or not the appellant is a service provider and, therefore, liable to pay the service tax rest on the interpretation of the aforementioned circular and also the aforesaid provisions which are already referred to hereinbefore.

11. Albeit, it is true that the appellant deposits a licence fees of Rs.

1. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.

..........................................J [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ] ............................................J 17 [ Anil R. Dave ] New Delhi, January 13, 2011.