2008 (3) TMI 171 - AT - Service Tax

Services of tour operators by hiring out the vehicles, for picking and dropping of employees and children - revenue submit that the word tour will cover impugned services for the period between October 2000 to September 2004 till definition of tour operator got amended, issue is settled in assessee s favor - but for the period from October 2004 to March 05, we find that the issue needs to be gone into detail, which will be possible only at the time of final hearing stay partly granted

Summary

Issues: Stay application against order confirming Service tax amount, interpretation of "tour operator" definition, coverage of services provided by hiring out vehicles for picking and dropping employees and children.

Analysis:
1. The stay application was filed against the order confirming a Service tax amount. The issue revolved around the interpretation of the definition of "tour operator" concerning the services provided by hiring out vehicles for picking and dropping employees and children.

2. The applicant argued that for the period before the definition change, their case was covered by a previous decision. The Co-ordinate Bench's decision in the case of Gandhi Travels was cited to support their contention. However, for the period after the definition amendment, a different interpretation was presented. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise contended that the activity of picking up employees/children and dropping them at different places falls under the definition of planning, scheduling, and organizing tours by any mode of transport.

3. The Tribunal found that for the period before the definition change, the applicant's case might be supported by the decision in the Gandhi Travels case. However, for the subsequent period, further detailed examination was deemed necessary, which would be conducted during the final hearing. As a result, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit a specific amount within a specified timeframe and report compliance. The recovery of the remaining amounts was stayed pending the appeal's disposal, subject to the pre-deposit compliance.

4. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of the specific period covered by the definition change in determining the applicability of the "tour operator" definition to the services provided by the applicant. The need for a detailed examination during the final hearing for the subsequent period underscored the complexity of the issue and the necessity for a thorough review before reaching a final decision.