2015 (7) TMI 1135 - AT - Service Tax

Demand alongwith interest and penalties - Tour Operator services - whether three vehicles would fall within the meaning and scope of Tourist Vehicles, under Section 65 (114) of the Act, 1994 or not - Held that - the Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the Contract Carriage Permit observed that the said three vehicles were permitted as contract carriage under Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and are not covered under the definition of Tourist Vehicles, within the meaning of Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read with Rule 82 to 85 and 128 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988. In view of that, Commissioner (Appeals) held that demand of service tax in respect of said three vehicles would not sustain. The Tribunal, on the identical issue in the case of CCE, Vadodara-II vs. Gandhi Travels 2007 (2) TMI 57 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. In that case, the vehicles owned by the Respondent held as not covered under Tourist Vehicles as per certificate from the transport authority produced before the Commissioner (Appeals). It has been observed that the Tourist Vehicles has to be read in the line and provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules thereunder. - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order on service tax demand for services provided under Tour Operator category.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming a demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 15,33,915 along with interest and penalties for services provided under the Tour Operator category from April 2000 to June 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order concerning three vehicles not falling within the definition of Tourist Vehicles under Section 65 (114) of the Act, 1994, for services provided to M/s. JCT Electronics. The remaining vehicles' service tax demand was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further assessment.

Upon review, it was found that the three vehicles in question were permitted as contract carriages under the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, and did not meet the criteria for Tourist Vehicles as per the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the service tax demand for these three vehicles was not sustainable. The Tribunal referenced a similar case involving the Respondent's vehicles not being considered Tourist Vehicles as per the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules, based on a certificate from the transport authority.

Considering the above, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order, citing consistency with the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules in determining Tourist Vehicles. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the Respondent.