Case Details: EON Aviation Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax – VI (2025) 27 Centax 186 (Tri.-Bom)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (T) & Ajay Sharma, Member (J)
- Shri Prakash Shah, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Shri Priyesh Bheda, Joint Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, a non-scheduled operator permit holder, provided aircraft chartering services to various corporate customers. From 01-07-2010, the assessee discharged service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzo), treating the activity as “air transport of passengers.” The department contended that the service fell under “supply of tangible goods” under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) and raised a differential tax demand. The adjudicating authority, relying on the decision in In re Global Vectra Helicorp, excluded corporate clients from the definition of “passengers,” leading to the present appeal. The assessee filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), contending that the nature of the service remained “air transport of passengers,” as there was no transfer of possession and effective control to corporate clients. The department, on the other hand, argued that the contractual arrangement constituted “supply of tangible goods” due to the corporate entity being the primary contracting party.
CESTAT Held
The Hon’ble CESTAT held that aircraft chartering services provided by a non-scheduled operator permit holder to corporate clients qualify as “air transport of passenger” under Section 65(105)(zzzo) of the Finance Act, 1994, and not as “supply of tangible goods service” under Section 65(105)(zzzzj). The Tribunal emphasized that the contractual arrangement between a corporate entity and the operator does not alter the classification of the service. It ruled that passenger transport remains the dominant aspect of the transaction, and the absence of transfer of possession and effective control negates the applicability of Section 65(105)(zzzzj). Consequently, the demand for differential tax was set aside.
List of Cases Cited
- Adani Gas Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2012 (28) S.T.R. 170 (Tribunal) — Distinguished [Para 13]
- All India Fed. of Tax Practitioners v. Union of India — 2007 (7) S.T.R. 625 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 17]
- Commissioner v. Caryaire Equipment India Pvt. Ltd. — 2012 (278) E.L.T. 30 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 9]
- Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (42) S.T.R. 118 (Tribunal) — Distinguished [Paras 4, 11, 12, 13, 14]
- Indian National Shipowners’ Association v. Union of India — 2009 (14) S.T.R. 289 (Bom.) — Distinguished [Paras 13, 16, 19]
- Karnavati Aviation Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2013 (30) S.T.R. 89 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 13, 21]
- Karnavati Aviation Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2024 (3) TMI 458-CESTAT Ahmedabad — Referred [Para 15]
- King Rotors and Air Charter Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2011 (269) E.L.T. 343 (Tribunal) — Distinguished [Paras 13, 14]
- Mesco Airlines Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2013 (31) S.T.R. 364 (Tribunal) — Distinguished [Para 13]
- NDP Namboodiri v. Union of India — (2007) 4 SCC 502 — Referred [Para 9]
- South Gujarat Roofing Tiles Manufacturing Association v. State of Gujarat — (1976) 4 SCC 601 — Referred [Para 9]
- United Helicharters Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2010 (262) E.L.T. 293 (Tribunal) — Distinguished [Para 13]
- VRL Logistics Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2023) 3 Centax 168 (Tri. – LB.) — Referred [Paras 14, 15]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular DOF No. 334/1/2008-TRU, dated 29-2-2008 [Paras 3, 7]
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 20/COMMR(ST)/2009, dated 9-2-2009 [Para 18]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 6/2012-S.T., dated 17-3-2012 [Paras 8, 12]
- Notification No. 26/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 [Paras 8, 12]
