2016 (8) TMI 402 - AT - Service Tax

Tour operator service demand - tourist vehicle service provided during the period April, 2001 to March, 2006 - amendment in definition of tourist vehicle by Finance Act, 2004 definition post 2004 taken into consideration Held that - The issue for the period after 05.02.2004 is to be decided. The case law relied upon by learned departmental representative is before the amendment of definition of tour operator in the Finance Act, 2004. Therefore, the said case law does not squarely cover the period after 05.02.2004. To provide tour operator service, the vehicle should necessarily be tourist vehicles - No evidence found that the vehicles used by the respondents were the tourist vehicles appeal dismissed decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the service provided by M/s Rana Travels and Tours qualifies as Tour Operator Service for the period from April 2001 to March 2006.
2. Whether the vehicles used by M/s Rana Travels and Tours were tourist vehicles.
3. Interpretation of the definition of tour operator post-amendment in the Finance Act, 2004.
4. Applicability of case laws and notifications in determining the nature of the service provided.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal dated 16/02/2009, where M/s Rana Travels and Tours were alleged to have provided Tour Operator Service to transport employees of M/s IFFCO. The original authority held them liable for service tax and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the post-05.02.2004 period and concluded that the service did not qualify as Tour Operator Service as the vehicles used did not meet the specifications of a tourist vehicle as per Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

2. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad, appealed the decision, arguing that the respondent operated tours in tourist vehicles. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence to establish that the journeys were performed in tourist vehicles. The Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence to support the claim that the vehicles used were indeed tourist vehicles. As a result, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross objections were also disposed of.

3. In analyzing the period post-amendment in the Finance Act, 2004, the Tribunal considered the definition of a tour operator and the requirement for a vehicle to be a tourist vehicle to satisfy this definition. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of evidence to support the claim that the vehicles used were tourist vehicles, as per the amended definition. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of such evidence and the need for a clear establishment of the nature of the vehicles used for transportation services.

4. The Tribunal reviewed case laws and submissions presented by both parties. The Departmental Representative relied on previous rulings, including a tribunal ruling in a similar case. The respondent submitted a written submission citing a specific notification. The Tribunal carefully considered these submissions but ultimately based its decision on the lack of evidence regarding the nature of the vehicles used by M/s Rana Travels and Tours, emphasizing the importance of factual substantiation in determining the applicability of Tour Operator Service.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence presented and the legal interpretations applied.