2010 (9) TMI 635 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery - Tour Operator s Service - The definition of Tour Operator was amended with effect from 10-9-2004 - Prior to the amendment Tour Operator meant any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 or the Rules made thereunder - The department has no case that the buses given to private agencies against hire charges during the period of dispute were covered by any such permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act/Rules - None of such vehicles has been shown to have been covered by any tour permit issued by the Motor Vehicles authority - It has also not been shown that the Road Transport Corporation was engaged in the business of operating tours prior to or after 10-9-2004 - Therefore the demand of service tax confirmed against the appellant is not sustainable in law - The Road Transport Corporation was not required to get registered as Tour Operator with the department - Therefore it was not open to the department to invoke the extended period of limitation against them. Held that waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amounts of service tax interest thereon and penalties - Appeal is allowed in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Delay in appeal filing, Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, Demand of service tax under 'Tour Operator's Service'.

1. Delay in Appeal Filing:
The appeal filed by the State Road Transport Corporation was delayed by 28 days. The explanation of delay offered in the COD application was perused by the Tribunal. Despite no representation for the appellant, the Tribunal decided to dispose of the application for the ends of justice. The explanation provided by the appellant was deemed satisfactory, leading to the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

2. Stay Application for Waiver of Pre-Deposit and Stay of Recovery:
The stay application sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning service tax demanded from the appellant and penalties imposed on them. Despite no representation for the appellant upon notice, the Tribunal decided to dispose of this application. The records were examined, and the ld. SDR was heard. The Tribunal made a decision based on the circumstances presented.

3. Demand of Service Tax under 'Tour Operator's Service':
The demand of service tax, categorized as 'Tour Operator's Service,' was for the period from October 2000 to September 2005, raised in a show-cause notice dated 12-3-2006. The Tribunal noted that the definition of "Tour Operator" was amended with effect from 10-9-2004. Prior to the amendment, a "Tour Operator" was defined as any person engaged in operating tours in a vehicle covered by a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal found that the buses provided by the State Road Transport Corporation to private agencies for various tours were not covered by any permit under the Motor Vehicles Act. As a result, the demand of service tax against the appellant was deemed unsustainable in law. The Tribunal also referred to a previous stay order passed by the Bench, which favored the appellant, supporting the decision to waive pre-deposit and stay of recovery in this case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded by granting a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the service tax, interest, and penalties. This decision was pronounced in court, bringing the matter to a resolution in favor of the State Road Transport Corporation.

---