2013 (11) TMI 295

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner (AR) PER: S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby a demand of Rs. 4,49,021/- is confirmed along with interest and penalties are imposed on the ground that the appellants are providing rent-a-cab operator service and wrongly availing the benefit of Notification NO. 39/97-ST dated 22.8.1997. 3. The contention of the appellants .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the category of 'tour operator' by availing the benefit of the Notification. 4. The appellants submitted that the whole demand is time barred as the show cause notice was issued in the year 2006 demanding service tax for the period 2000-04 invoking extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression. As the appellants were regularly filing ST-3 returns, therefore the allegation of suppres .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... providing rent-a-cab service, therefore we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the demand is confirmed. In respect of penalty, we find that as the appellants are registered as a provider of tour operator and paying tax accordingly and also filing statutory returns, therefore as per the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, we find that it is not a case for imposition of any pen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X