9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (10) TMI 370 - HC - Service Taxtour service - provided by the respondent to their clients under contract in vehicles covered by permits granted under Motor Vehicles Act as contract carriage under the definition of the tour operator as given under Section 65(115) of the Finance Act 1994 - Tribunal has rendered a categoric finding that the buses operated by the respondent were not licenced as tourist vehicles therefore they do not fall within the meaning of tour operator . It has also been noted by the Tribunal that no evidence to the contrary has been produced by the Revenue and that the issue involved in the case is squarely covered by the judgment and order of the Tribunal in the case of CCE&C Vadodara v. Gandhi Travels - Held that - no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference - appeal is dismissed
Issues:
Challenge to judgment and order of the Tribunal regarding the classification of 'tour' service under the definition of 'tour operator' as per the Finance Act, 1994. Analysis: The appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Service Tax Act was filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 14-5-2007. The substantial questions of law proposed for consideration included the classification of the 'tour' service provided by the respondent under the definition of 'tour operator' as per Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal had found that the buses operated by the respondent were not licensed as 'tourist vehicles', leading to the conclusion that they do not fall within the meaning of 'tour operator'. Additionally, it was noted that no contrary evidence was presented by the Revenue, and the issue was similar to a previous judgment in the case of CCE&C, Vadodara v. Gandhi Travels. Considering the arguments presented and the orders passed in a related case, the High Court found that the Tribunal's categoric finding regarding the classification of the service provided by the respondent was justified. The Court observed that the buses in question were not licensed as 'tourist vehicles', aligning with the Tribunal's conclusion that the service did not fall under the definition of 'tour operator'. Given the circumstances of the case and the previous order, the Court determined that no substantial question of law arose to warrant interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision.
|
