CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL New Delhi PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. 3 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. DLI-SVTAX-001-COM-003-16-17 dated 27.05.2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax (Adjudication), Delhi-I]

Airport Authority of India : Appellant Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport New Delhi-110003 Vs Commissioner of CGST- Delhi : Respondent IAEA House, MG Road, New Delhi-110002 APPEARANCE:

Shri Prakash Kumar Sinha & Shri Ayush Kumar, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Mahboob Ur Rehman, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM :

HON’BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No. 50278/2026 Date of Hearing:19.01.2026 Date of Decision:18.02.2026 HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA The present appeal has been filed by M/s Airport Authority of India¹ to assail the Order-in-Original No. DLI-SVTAX-001-COM-003- 16-17 dated 27.05.2016 wherein the Commissioner confirmed the service tax demand on Route Navigation Facility Charges² and Terminal Navigation Landing Charges³along with the liability on certain Miscellaneous Income.

1 the appellant

2 RNFC 3 TNLC

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was registered with Service Tax Department for providing taxable service under the category of Airport Service, Cargo handling and warehousing service, Renting of immovable property service, Management consultant Service, Manpower Recruitment Agency Services etc. With effect from 10.09.2004, sub clause (zzm) was added to clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 wherein any service provided to any person in an airport or a civil enclave by the appellant, Airport Authority of India or any person authorized by it, was brought within the definition of "taxable service" and accordingly such services became taxable.During an enquiry by the DGCEI Officers, the appellant vide their letter dated 28.03.2005 requested the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Service Tax, that the assessment of Service Tax for the period from 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2005 may be considered to be provisional in terms of Rule 6(4) of the Service Tux Rules, 1994 and that for subsequent period, the assessment may be done on provisional basis. On the basis of this letter, the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 29.03.2005 directed the appellant to pay Service Tax on provisional basis under Rule 6(4) of Service Tax Rules 1994 for the month of March, 2005 subject to certain conditions as specified in the letter. Accordingly, the appellant started paying Service Tax on provisional basis and paid some amount for the period prior to March, 2005. The Appellant also filed ST-3 Return, for period from Sept, 2004 to March, 2005 on 26.07.2005. Subsequently a similar request was made by the appellant vide their letter dated 18.10.2005 for provisional assessment for the period from 01.04.2005 to 30.09.2005. On conclusion of enquiry, Show Cause Notice dated

18.07.2006 was issued to the appellant demanding Service Tax of Rs. 3,08,44,21,797/- in respect of Traffic Revenue collected for the period from 10.09.2004 to 31.05.2006 along with interest and penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 15.12.2006 confirming the demand as proposed in the Show Cause Notice.Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original dated 15.12.2006, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Final Order dated 02.04.2015 remanded the matter for De-novo adjudication for quantification of service fax liability keeping in view of the decisions and observation of the order and directed the Commissioner to give his clear findings on the point as to whether the assessments for the period from 10.09.2004 to Feb, 2005 can be treated as provisional assessment and if the assessments for this period cannot be treated as provisional, whether the dement for this period is within the normal limitation period. The de-novo a