2015 (10) TMI 2214 - AT - Service Tax

Tour Operator Service - vehicle provided for carrying employee - Held that - It is observed that First Appellate Authority has mainly gone by a dictionary meaning that transportation of employees is neither a pleasure trip nor a visit for special purpose to learn or look around the place visited. It is observed that when a definition of Tour is given in Section 65 (76) of the Finance Act, 1994 there is no necessity to borrow the definition given in dictionaries. Also no findings are given by the First Appellate Authority whether the vehicle provided for carrying employee confer to the criteria required under Section 2 (43) of the Motor Vehicles Act (1988) readwith Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. The matter is, therefore, required to be remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter under denovo consideration in the light of definitions given in the Finance Act, 1994 and pass a reasoned order. - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the definition of Tour Operator Service under Section 65 (115) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Application of definitions of tourist vehicle and Tour under Section 65 (114) and Section 65 (113) respectively.
3. Consideration of criteria under Section 2 (43) of the Motor Vehicles Act (1988) read with Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989.
4. Necessity of borrowing definitions from dictionaries for legal interpretation.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) No. 72/ST/APPL/ALLD/2009, which set aside the demand confirmation, stating that the activities of the respondent did not fall under the purview of Tour Operator Service as per the definition in the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The Revenue argued that the respondent provided Tour operator service by transporting employees of a specific company, citing relevant definitions under the Finance Act, 1994, and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The First Appellate Authority's decision was criticized for relying on a dictionary meaning of "tour" instead of the legal definitions provided in the statute.

3. Despite the absence of the respondent during the hearing and no request for adjournment, the Tribunal observed that the First Appellate Authority failed to consider whether the vehicle used for employee transportation met the criteria specified in the Motor Vehicles Act (1988) and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. This lack of analysis necessitated a remand of the case for a fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. The Tribunal emphasized that when legal definitions are explicitly provided in the Finance Act, 1994, resorting to dictionary meanings for interpretation is unnecessary. The case was remanded to the First Appellate Authority for a reconsideration based on the statutory definitions, emphasizing the need for a reasoned order in compliance with the legal framework.

5. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the First Appellate Authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the definitions outlined in the Finance Act, 1994, and the relevant motor vehicle regulations.