2008 (4) TMI 158 - AT - Service Tax

Tour Operator s Service definition of tour operator was amended from October 2004 by adding expression any mode of transport for the period after October 2004, want of prima facie case for the appellants is absolute - plea of limitation not acceptable because no any documents supplied to the departmental authorities - plea of financial hardships is not supported by any evidence stay not granted completely

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of the definition of 'tour operator' under the Finance Act, 1994; Whether vehicles operated by the appellants qualify as 'tourist vehicles'; Validity of demand for service tax and Education Cess; Applicability of specifications under Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules; Invocation of extended period of limitation; Financial hardships plea; Prima facie case for the appellants; Interpretation of relevant case laws; Plea of limitation; Pre-deposit amount determination.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai involved a challenge to a demand of service tax and Education Cess amounting to over Rs. 52.00 lakhs, along with penalties, for the period April 2000 to March 2007. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of the definition of 'tour operator' under the Finance Act, 1994. The lower authority categorized the tax under "Tour Operator's Service," with the definition evolving from Section 65(52) to Section 65(115) post-October 2004. The amended definition broadened the scope to include any person engaged in planning, scheduling, organizing, or arranging tours by any mode of transport.

The appellants contended that their vehicles did not meet the legal attributes of a 'tourist vehicle' as per Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The Revenue argued that the vehicles, operating as 'contract carriages,' qualified as 'tourist vehicles' under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, solely requiring a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, without the need to conform to Rule 128 specifications. The Tribunal analyzed relevant case laws, emphasizing that post-October 2004, the specifications under Rule 128 were not mandatory for classification as a 'tourist vehicle.'

Regarding the plea of limitation, the Tribunal found the consultant's submission lacking evidence, and the financial hardships plea unsupported. The Tribunal, in a lenient approach, directed the appellants to pre-deposit a specified amount within a given timeframe, with the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery contingent on compliance. The judgment clarified the legal position post-October 2004, emphasizing the necessity of a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act for classifying a vehicle as a 'tourist vehicle' for service tax purposes, irrespective of Rule 128 specifications.