2018 (9) TMI 30 - AT - Service Tax

Rent-a-Cab Service - appellants entered into an agreement with M/s Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) and provided buses owned by them for use by U.P.S.R.T.C. - Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s S.K. Kareemun Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Hyderabad-III 2015 (1) TMI 282 - CESTAT BANGALORE relied upon where Demand of service tax confirmed for the period 1/6/2007 onwards. Held that - The lower authorities did not have the benefit of final order passed by Tribunal in the case of M/s S.K. Kareemun - matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority with direction to take into consideration the case law and decide the matter afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether the services provided by the appellants to the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) qualify as 'Rent-a-Cab Service.'
2. Validity of penalties imposed under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST & Central Excise Appeal Commissionerate, Allahabad, confirming a demand of ?1,18,085 as the appellants provided buses to UPSRTC. The Commissioner set aside the penalties but upheld the demand. The appellant argued that the services did not fall under 'Rent-a-Cab Service' as UPSRTC had effective control over the buses, citing a ruling by the Allahabad High Court. The Revenue presented a Tribunal decision in a similar case. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not consider the relevant rulings and remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority to reevaluate in light of the case laws cited. The Tribunal clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the case's merits, leaving all issues open for adjudication by the Adjudicating Authorities.

2. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the impugned Order. The decision emphasized the need for the Adjudicating Authority to consider the rulings provided by the appellant and the Revenue before making a fresh determination. Both parties were granted the opportunity to present their arguments, with all issues open for reconsideration. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal precedents in interpreting the nature of services provided and the necessity for a comprehensive review based on relevant case laws to ensure a fair and informed decision-making process.