IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066 Date of Hearing 05.01.2016 For Approval & Signature : Honble Honble Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes Application No.ST/STAY/54263/2014-CU[DB] Appeal No.ST/53808/2014-CU[DB] [Arising out of Orders-in-Original No.61-62/ST/SRB/2014, dated 27.03.2014 passed by the C.S.T. (Adjudication), New Delhi] M/s. Star Aviation Academy Appellant C.S.T., Delhi Respondent Appearance Mr. Narendra Singh, Advocate - for the appellant Mr. RK Mishra, DR - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) Final Order No.50040/2016, dated 05.01.2016 Per Mr. R.K. Singh : Stay application along with appeal was filed against Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2014 in terms of which service tax demand of Rs.3,08,10,504/- for the period April, 2006 to March, 2012 was confirmed along with interest and penalties on the ground that the appellant provided Commercial Training or Coaching service but did not pay service tax.
2. The appellant has contended that (i) it was not providing commercial training or coaching service. It is an institute imparting education to Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AME) as authorised by DGCA. (ii) It was an AME training institute approved by DGCA, Govt. of India to conduct AME courses authorised under civil aviation requirements issued by the DGCA under the authority of Rule 133A of Indian Aircraft Rules, 1937. The course structure, syllabus, facilities, appointment of faculty, manner in which training is to be imparted, periodicity of examinations, format of certificates, training records, etc. were mandated by DGCA. (iii) It issued aircraft maintenance engineers basic course completion certificate which is valid and recognised as per Indian Aircraft Act, 1934 and is mandated to be issued under para 8.4 of Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) issued by DGCA under Rule 133B of Aircraft Rules, 1937. (iv) It did not undertake any other courses which would attract service tax. The issue is squarely covers in its favour by Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering Vs. Union of India [2013 (30) STR 689 (Del.)].
3. Ld. Departmental Representative concedes that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering Vs. Union of India (supra).
4. We have considered the submissions of both sides. As has been conceded by Revenue, the issue is indeed covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering Vs. Union of India (supra) and accordingly, following the said binding precedent and for the reasons alike, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Justice G. Raghuram) President (R.K. Singh) Member (Technical)
Comments