2019 (7) TMI 333 - AT - Service Tax

Rent-a-cab service - Abatement of value - validity of demand - HELD THAT - There is no challenge in respect of the demand under the head Tour Operator service. Since the appeal does not contain any ground with respect of Tour Operator service, no benefit in respect of such services can be granted. Time Limitation - no suppression of facts - HELD THAT - There are no suppression or mis-statement of facts - the demand for extended period of limitation is set aside. Penalty - HELD THAT - It is settled law that penalties under both section 76 78 cannot be imposed. Penalties under both section 76 78 have been imposed in the impugned order. The penalty under section 76 is set aside. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of demand of Service Tax, interest, and imposition of penalty under sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act for providing services to ONGC, contesting the demand on limitation, and provision of services as a tour operator.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the confirmation of demand of Service Tax, interest, and penalty under sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act. The appellant provided services to ONGC by supplying jeep taxies on a monthly basis. Initially, the appellant paid Service Tax up to November 2001 but later stopped as they believed the services were not chargeable under the Rent-a-cab service. The Revenue raised a demand without abatement for the years 2002-03, 06-07, invoking a longer period of limitation. The appellant argued that the services provided did not qualify as rent-a-cab operator services. The appellant also contested the issue on limitations, citing the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in a similar case.

Regarding the provision of services as a tour operator, the appellant was alleged to have provided services without registration. The appellant contested the demand on limitations and relied on relevant legal precedents. The Tribunal noted that the appeal did not challenge the demand under the 'Tour Operator' service, thus no benefit could be granted in that regard. The appellant primarily contested the demand on limitation grounds and produced a decision of the Tribunal in a similar case, which was deemed inapplicable due to the jurisdictional High Court's opposite view.

The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in a similar case where the benefit of limitation was granted while upholding the demand on merit. The Tribunal set aside the demand for the extended period of limitation and ruled that penalties under sections 76 & 78 could not be imposed. The penalty under section 76 was set aside, and the penalty under section 78 related to the demand for rent-a-cab operator service was also set aside. The appeal was partly allowed based on the above terms.