2010 (7) TMI 471 - AT - Service Tax

Tour operators - SCN issued asking them to take registration and pay service tax on the service rendered by them - contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon certificate issued by Regional Transport Authority, Rajkot for bringing the vehicles used by the respondent out of the purview of definition of tourist vehicle as defined in the Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 at the conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority was prima facie wrong and he has overlooked that the lower adjudicating authority has personally examined the vehicles and arrived at conclusion that the vehicle predominantly covered the specification made in Rule 128 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988 - Held that - Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied upon the decision of Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Secy. Federn. of Bus-Operators Assn. of T.N. v. UOI & Others reported in (2001 -TMI - 55 - HIGH COURT MADRAS) - The appellant could not produce any evidence to demolish the conclusion arrived at by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - Commissioner (Appeals) order is upheld and Revenue s appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order demanding service tax and imposing penalty.
- Interpretation of the definition of tour operator and tourist vehicle.
- Reliance on certificate issued by Regional Transport Authority.
- Examination of vehicles by lower adjudicating authority.
- Comparison with previous court decisions.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order demanding service tax and penalty on the respondent, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The case revolved around whether the service provided by the respondent fell within the definition of a tour operator.

2. The department initiated proceedings against the respondent for allegedly operating as tour operators without paying service tax. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for service tax, leading the respondent to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner relied on the definitions of tour, tourist vehicle, and tour operator, along with a previous court decision, to rule in favor of the respondent.

3. The appellant contended that the Commissioner relied on a certificate from the Regional Transport Authority to exclude the vehicles used by the respondent from the definition of tourist vehicles. The Revenue argued that the lower adjudicating authority had examined the vehicles and found them to meet the specifications of a tourist vehicle. The appellant also cited previous court decisions to support their case.

4. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner based the decision on the definitions of tour operator and tourist vehicle, along with the certificate from the Regional Transport Authority. The Tribunal noted that the vehicles used by the respondent did not fall within the definition of a tourist vehicle, as required by law. The appellant's arguments were deemed unsubstantiated, and the Commissioner's decision was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.