JETLITE (INDIA) LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel submits that excess baggage carried by the passengers by aircraft shall not come within the purview of taxable service provided to any person by air craft operator in relation to transport of goods by aircraft under Section 65(105)(zzn) of the Finance Act, 1994. According to him, transport of goods service was not rendered by the Appellants. Baggage carried by passengers by air craft beyond certain permissible limit can not be said to be a taxable service. Receipt made from excess baggage charges was not for any service rendered by the Appellant. The essential character of aircraft service being carrying passengers, the taxation done by the adjudication order is not proper.

(2.) HEARD both sides and perused the record. As per statutory provision under Section 65(105)(zzn) of the Finance Act, 1994 taxable service means any service provided or to be provided - (zzn) to any person, by air craft operator, in relation to transport of goods by aircraft. The definition of the term "aircraft" appears in Section 65(3a) of the said Act. Passenger aircraft is not excluded. The meaning of the "goods" is assigned from the term "sale" used in Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Such adoption is made in terms of Section 65(50) of the Finance Act, 1994. We do appreciate at this stage that the goods are tangible as defined by the above Act and carried by aircraft for consideration. Once goods are carried in air by an aircraft by what ever means that may be, that does not make any difference to law. When we read Section 65(105)(zzn) that clearly throws light that taxable service provided to any person, by air craft operator, in relation to transport of goods by aircraft is covered by the scope of the law. Accordingly, we direct the Appellants to make pre -deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs (Rupees thirty lakhs) within 4 weeks from today and make compliance on 29th November, 2010. Subject to compliance of the above direction, balance demand shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.

(3.) IT is left open to both sides to argue on merit elaborately in the course of regular hearing.