2008 (9) TMI 227 - AT - Service Tax

Service Tax on the activity of contract carriages in the category of tour operator services - Notification No. 15/2007-S.T. dt. 4-4-2007 has been issued for the period from 1-4-2000 to 4-2-2000 i.e. this notification exempt impugned services retrospectively - fact that the Government has to issue a Notification under 11C is sufficient reason to show that invocation of longer period is not sustainable - appellants have a very strong case in their favour pre-deposit partly waived

Summary

Issues:
1. Pre-deposit amounts required in service tax appeals.
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
3. Interpretation of Notification No. 15/2007-S.T.
4. Classification of appellants as 'Tour Operators'.
5. Length of the period covered by show cause notices.
6. Arguments for and against waiver of pre-deposit.
7. Final decision on pre-deposit amounts and compliance.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to service tax appeals requiring pre-deposit amounts specified in a tabular format for various parties based on the service tax demanded and the period involved. Penalties and interest were also imposed under relevant sections of the Finance Act.

2. A miscellaneous application for condonation of a 15-day delay in filing an appeal was allowed based on legal precedents cited, and the stay application was considered for disposal along with connected appeals.

3. The appellants argued that Notification No. 15/2007-S.T. recognized a general practice exempting service tax on tour operator services during a specific period. They contended that the extended period for demand was not sustainable due to divergent views and amendments in the definition of 'Tour Operators'.

4. The classification of appellants as 'Tour Operators' was disputed, with arguments that their services did not fall under this category based on the type of vehicles used and the definition pre-Finance Act, 2008. Legal precedents and interpretations were cited to support this claim.

5. There was a discrepancy regarding the period covered by show cause notices, with the Revenue contending that the longer period was invoked initially and subsequent notices were within the normal period, challenging the appellants' claims.

6. Arguments for total waiver of pre-deposit were presented by the appellants based on their classification and the Notification issued. The Revenue opposed this, stating that the appellants were indeed 'Tour Operators' and should not be granted complete waiver.

7. The Tribunal ordered specific pre-deposit amounts for each appellant within a set timeframe, highlighting that a final decision on the merits would be made during the hearing. Non-compliance would lead to appeal dismissal, with a scheduled compliance date and hearing date provided.