2011 (2) TMI 490 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - Tour Operator Services - the respondents also produced copies of the certificates issued by the Regional Transport Office in respect of the vehicles being used by them certifying that the same are not tourist vehicles, since the same do not comply with the specifications mentioned under Rule 128 - the certificate given by the Regional Transport Office, as produced above, who is the proper authority to give decision on the said dispute, is clear that the vehicle being used by the respondents cannot be held to be tourist vehicles - Appeal is rejected

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the definition of "Tour Operator Services" under Section 65 (115) of the Finance Act, 1994 in relation to the type of vehicles used for conducting tours.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of services rendered by the respondents as falling within the scope of "Tour Operator Services" as defined in Section 65 (115) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the order confirming the Service Tax against the respondents, stating that the tours conducted by them did not fall within the definition of Tour Operator services. The respondents operated tours in an Omni Bus under a Contract Carriage Permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Bhavnagar. They argued that their vehicle did not qualify as a tourist vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and therefore, should not be considered as falling under the category of Tour Operators.

During the proceedings, the respondents presented certificates from the Regional Transport Office confirming that their vehicles were not tourist vehicles as they did not comply with the specifications mentioned under Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged these certificates and held that since the vehicles used by the respondents were not tourist vehicles, they could not be classified as Tour Operators. The appellate authority also considered a judgment by the Hon'ble Madras High Court which supported this interpretation.

The Tribunal, after reviewing the grounds of appeal, found that the essence of the Revenue's argument was that the vehicles used by the respondents held a permit from the transport authorities, thereby qualifying them as Tour Operators. However, the Tribunal emphasized the significance of the certificate issued by the Regional Transport Office, which clearly stated that the vehicles were not tourist vehicles. The Tribunal agreed with the appellate authority's decision, noting that the Revenue did not contest the applicability of the Madras High Court judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of the services provided by the respondents.