2009 (8) TMI 728 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit Interest Penalty - Tour Operator service - services rendered in vehicles leased by the applicant - that tour operator service need not be in the vehicles that conform to the definition of tourist vehicle under the relevant provisions of Central Motor Vehicles Act and Rules - waiver of pre-deposit - allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petition against waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, interest, and penalties.
2. Classification of services as 'Tour Operator' under Section 65(52) of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Interpretation of the definition of 'tour operator service' in vehicles leased by the applicant.

Analysis:
The case involved a stay petition challenging the waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, interest, and penalties. The applicant claimed they provided services as a 'Tour Operator' from April 2001 to May 2004. The lower authorities classified the services under the category of 'Tour Operator' under Section 65(52) of the Finance Act, 1994. The applicant argued that they operated tours in contract carriages, not tourist vehicles. However, this argument was rejected, citing precedents like the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in specific cases. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the dues based on this classification.

The main issue revolved around the interpretation of the definition of 'tour operator service' in vehicles leased by the applicant. The definition of 'tour operator service' had undergone changes before September 2004. Previous tribunal decisions, such as Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore v. Gayatri Enterprises, Commissioner of C. Ex., Indore v. Ramsons Travels & Tours, and Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara-II v. Gandhi Travels, were considered. These decisions supported the notion that 'tour operator service' did not necessarily require vehicles conforming to the definition of 'tourist vehicle' under relevant motor vehicle regulations. The Tribunal found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the disputed amounts. Consequently, the application for the waiver was allowed, and the recovery of the amounts stayed pending the appeal's disposal. The decision was pronounced and dictated in the open court by the Tribunal members.