2016 (10) TMI 240 - AT - Service Tax

Tour operator service - Invokation of extended period of limitation - Demand - appellant providing buses to M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. company on contract basis for plying their employees from their factory to residence and vice-versa - Held that - as per definition of tour operator w.e.f. 10/9/04, tour operator is a person who is planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging the tours but in the case in hand, the appellant is not planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging the tour but merely supplying the bus at the request of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.. All the planning of tours have been made by M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. In that circumstances, w.e.f, 10/9/04, the appellant is, out of the ambit of tour operator service . Further, we find that for the period prior to 10/9/04 the demands have been confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation as the issue liability of service tax under tour operator service was in dispute in that circumstances the extended period of limitation is not invokable for the demands prior to 10/9/04. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant's activity of providing buses to a company on a contract basis falls under the category of tour operator service.
2. Whether the demand of service tax under the category of tour operator service is sustainable.
3. Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable for the demands prior to a specific date.

Analysis:
1. The appellant provided buses to a company for transporting employees, and the Revenue claimed it as tour operator service. The appellant argued that their case is similar to precedents like CCE, Bhopal vs. Suresh Kumar Advani and Capricorn Transways Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad. The Revenue relied on the Friends Tour & Travels case. The Tribunal examined the issue of liability in providing transportation services and cited the Capricorn Transways Pvt. Ltd. case, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination by the adjudicating authority.

2. The Tribunal considered the definition of a tour operator post a specific date and concluded that the appellant did not meet the criteria as they were not planning or organizing tours but simply providing buses at the company's request. For the period before that date, the demands were set aside as the liability of service tax under tour operator service was in dispute, rendering the extended period of limitation inapplicable.

3. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the demand against the appellant was not sustainable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The decision highlighted the importance of meeting specific criteria to be classified as a tour operator and the relevance of the extended period of limitation based on the dispute over service tax liability.