Rachna Gupta ORDER
Rachna Gupta, Member (J)
1. Appeal is filed against the order No. 129 dated 30th April, 2013. The facts relevant for the purpose are that the appellants are having a unit of Maidens Hotels for providing Renting of Immovable Property Services, Mandap Keeper Service, Dry Cleaning Services, Business Auxiliary Services & internet cafe services and they have been accordingly registered. They have also got registered for providing Aircraft operator Services. However, Department in furtherance of an investigation on an intelligence gathered, noticed that appellants were supplying the Aircraft/Helicopter service to different service receivers as per the agreement entered into and as such, it was alleged that they were providing services under the category of supply of tangible goods, for which they neither took any Service Tax Registration nor did they paid any service tax on the said activity. Resultantly, show cause notice dated 21st December, 2010 was served upon them demanding Service Tax under the category of supply of tangible goods for the period w.e.f. May, 2008 to May, 2010, alongwith the interest and the proportionate penalties. The said show cause notice was adjudicated initially vide order dated 24th January, 2012 thereby confirming the said demand. Being aggrieved thereof, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has upheld the said order and rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
2. We have heard Mr. Narasimhan, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vivek Pandey, ld. D.R. for the Department.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant own two Aircrafts/Helicopters, which are being provided by them on chartered hire basis. Hence, in fact they are providing the Aircraft Operator Services and such services for the domestic region came into tax net w. e. f. 1st June, 2010. The service of the appellant falls under the category of transport of passengers by Air service, which was not taxable for the period in dispute. For the Aircraft Operator Services the appellant are duly registered and have been discharging their liability since the services have been taxable. The demand raised alleging the same to be a service as that of supply of tangible goods is unjustified. The case of Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II - MANU/CM/0719/2015 : 2015 (2) TMI 974 -CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) is conceded with the mention that the issue has already been decided in favour of the department. It is however impressed upon that the SCN is barred by limitation. Appellant was under the impression that the services provided by him are of the category of Aircraft operator service. The moment these services were made taxable, the appellant got himself registered and is discharging his liability since then. No question of intentional tax evasion at all arises. Accordingly, the demand can sustain only for the normal period of limitation of one year. Both the orders below are alleged to be erroneous and hence, are prayed to be set aside. Appeal accordingly is prayed to be allowed.
4. While rebutting these arguments, it is submitted by the ld. D.R. that the appellants actually are in hospitality industry as they are into hotel business. They own two Aircrafts, which they are using on chartered basis. It is alleged that the appellants themselves have assumed to have been providing Aircraft Operator Services, which was made taxable, only in June,........