I.A. No. 1 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 6378 of 2012. Case: British Airways PLC India Branch Vs Commissioner of Service Tax. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberI.A. No. 1 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 6378 of 2012
CounselFor Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate, S.H. Ramina, Ms. S. Trehan, Ms. Liz Mathew, Arjun Singh Puri, Rahul Kripalani and T. Shetty, Advocates and For Respondents: Shri K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Advocate, Zoheb Hossain, K. Joseph and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates
JudgesR.M. Lodha and Madan B. Lokur, JJ.
IssueFinance Act, 1994 - Sections 76, 78
Citation2013 (31) STR 641
Judgement DateAugust 02, 2013
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Order:

  1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 31-5-2012 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "Tribunal") [2013 (29) S.T.R. 177 (Tri. - Del.)] whereby the Tribunal upheld the confirmation of demand of service tax and cess along with interest on account of statutory levy and charges by the Commissioner and also upheld the confirmation of demand of service tax and cess along with interest by the Commissioner with regard to air ticket sold prior to 1-5-2006 and journey undertaken on 1-5-2006 or thereafter. Civil Appeal has been admitted by this Court on 21-9-2012. On that day, notice was issued in the application for stay. It is this application which has come up for consideration today.

  2. We are informed that as per the impugned order, the appellant is required to pay about Rs. 13 Cr. towards service tax and Rs. 16.75 Cr. towards penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act 1994, as amended from time to time (for short "1994 Act").

  3. Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that out of Rs. 13 Cr. service tax liability, an amount of Rs. 6 Cr. has already been deposited.

  4. On hearing Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the revenue, we find no justification to stay the demand of service tax under the impugned order. Prayer for stay to that extent is rejected.

  5. As regards penalty under Section 76 of 1994 Act, two aspects need to be noted, first, penalty has also been imposed on the appellant...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT