2009 (6) TMI 208 - AT - Service Tax

Demand arises as a result of alleged non-payment of Service tax, on Tour Operator Service - The case of the department is that amounts collected and stated to be representing luggage collections actually represented passenger collections. Although the plea taken by the assessees was that they represented collections for transport of luggage of persons other than the passengers, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the plea. stay granted partly - The delay of three days in preferring the above appeal is allowed as it is satisfactorily explained as being due to the fact that the appellant is an elderly lady without any formal education and that she was not aware of the procedure relating to the filing of the appeal. Delay is condoned

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal
2. Application for waiver or pre-deposit of balance tax amount
3. Alleged non-payment of Service tax on Tour Operator Service
4. Lack of documentary evidence to support the claim of collections for carrying luggage other than passengers

Delay in filing the appeal:
The judgment addresses a delay of three days in filing the appeal, which is allowed due to a satisfactory explanation provided. The appellant, an elderly lady without formal education, was unaware of the appeal filing procedure. This explanation is considered valid, leading to the allowance of the delay.

Application for waiver or pre-deposit of balance tax amount:
The appellant sought a waiver or pre-deposit of the balance tax amount of Rs. 1,97,542 out of a total demand of Rs. 3,13,658. The demand arose from alleged non-payment of Service tax on Tour Operator Service. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed pre-deposit of the remaining tax amount along with penalties. The judgment directs the appellant to deposit Rs. 25,000 within four weeks, after which the balance of the adjudged dues will be waived, and recovery stayed pending the appeal.

Alleged non-payment of Service tax on Tour Operator Service:
The department contended that amounts collected as luggage charges actually represented passenger collections. The appellant claimed that the collections were for transporting luggage of persons other than passengers but failed to produce documentary evidence to support this claim. The lack of evidence presented a challenge as the available evidence to support the claim was not produced before the lower authorities. The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantiating claims with proper evidence in tax-related matters.

Lack of documentary evidence to support the claim of collections for carrying luggage other than passengers:
The judgment highlights the issue of insufficient documentary evidence to support the appellant's claim that heavy amounts were collected for carrying luggage other than that of passengers. The evidence, though stated to be available now, was not produced before the lower authorities. The judgment underscores the significance of providing necessary documentation to substantiate claims, especially in tax disputes.