ST - the assessee-company is the nodal agency for developing, operating, managing and maintaining airports in India - Under a Govt policy to privitize airports, the assessee entered into an Operations, Management and Development Agreement with M/s GMR & M/s GVR, which led to creation of the DIAL (Delhi International Airport Ltd.) & the MIAL (Mumbai International Airport Ltd.) - As per such agreement, the assessee would be entitled to 26% of the revenue generated - Later, the assessee's share of profits was 45.9% and 38.7% respectively - The Revenue sought to tax the same, being a franchisee agreement - Duty demand with penalty was imposed -

Held - The issue at hand is already decided by the Delhi High Court in the cases of Delhi International Airport P Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. and Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. vs Union of India & others - Herein the COurt held that a Operations, Management and Development Agreement is not a frachisee agreement u/s 65(47) of the Finance Act, 1994 - It further held that transactions between the DIAL & MIAL did not constitute taxable service u/s 65(105)(zze) - Following such precedent, the demands are set aside: CESTAT (Para 2-5,8,9) - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

ST - Assessee engaged in providing telephone services to subscribers - During audit, certain irregular availment of credit and other irregularities noticed for which SCN was issued to assessee - Assessee is not contesting the demand of service tax under category of sponsorship services and also the disallowance of credit availed on capital goods, thus demand on said issues are upheld - The first issue is whether the assessee can be allowed to adjust the excess paid service tax to liability payable for subsequent months - The issue stands covered by decision in case of General Manager (CMTS) - Following the same, demand raised on this ground is unsustainable and same is set aside - As regards to credit availed on service tax paid on advertisement on MTC buses, as per Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, credit can be availed on service tax/duty when the documents evidence the payment of same - Since the documents on which credit has been availed does not evidence the payment of service tax, credit availed is incorrect - The demand raised on this issue is sustained.

An amount of Rs.84,740/- has been disallowed being the credit taken on service tax paid on rent-a-cab service - Definition had wide ambit and had included the services namely rent-a-cab service - In Beekay Engg. & Castings Ltd. 2009-TIOL-1376-CESTAT-DEL the said services have been held to be eligible for credit - Disallowance of credit is unjustified and so set aside - Penalties in regard to these issues are unwarranted: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT