9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of the definition of "tour" under Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994 in relation to the usage of a vehicle for carrying employees of a factory, determination of whether the appellant was operating a tourist vehicle or a contract carriage, applicability of a previous decision by the Madras High Court, and consideration of waiver of pre-deposit of service tax.
Interpretation of the definition of "tour": The appellant argued that they were not operating a "tourist vehicle" under a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, but rather a contract carriage. The Tribunal noted that the definition of "tour" under Section 65(115) includes a journey from one place to another, regardless of distance. The issue was whether the appellant was using the vehicle as a tourist vehicle, which requires a special permit in form 47 and compliance with Rule 28 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It was not clear from the record whether the vehicle met the specifications for a tourist vehicle under Rule 128. The Tribunal considered the appellant to be a tour operator based on prima facie evidence and applied a previous decision of the Madras High Court in a similar case. Applicability of previous decision: The authorities below had applied the decision of the Madras High Court in a specific case, which led to the conclusion that there was no basis for a total waiver of pre-deposit of service tax. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the present case in light of the previous decision and found no grounds for a complete waiver. Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax: The Tribunal directed an interim stay of the impugned order on the condition that the appellant deposits 50% of the service tax payable within eight weeks. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal. Upon depositing the required amount, the remaining service tax and penalty would be waived. The application was disposed of accordingly, with a reporting compliance date set for a later time. Separate Judgement: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
