9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Section 65 (115) of the Finance Act. The period of dispute is October, 2002 to July, 2007. 2. The appellant are in possession of permits under Rule 72(1)(iv) of Motor Vehicles Rules for contract marriages. Before 10.09.2004 tour operator was defined under Section 65 (115) to mean "a person who is engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rules made there under." With effect from 10.09.2004 tour operator means "any person engaged in business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours (which may include arrangement for accommodation, sight seeing or other similar services) by any mode of transport and includes any person engaged in the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Assn. of T.N. Vs. Union of India 2006 (2) S.T.R. 411 (Mad.) holding that the vehicles which are covered under the definition in Section 2(43) of Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 128 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules alone would come within the definition of 'Tourist Vehicles' in Section 65 (115) and be covered under the Tour Operator service. The Hon'ble High Court held: 20. If we turn to the definition of the "contract carriage", which is defined in Section 2(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it becomes clear that there is identical language used therein (with emphasized words). Therefore, it cannot be said that the said vehicle which is covered under Section 72(2)(xvii) can never become a "tourist vehicle". We hasten to add, howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icularly the provisions of Section 65(51) and the other allied sections like Section 66(3), etc." It is clear that to be covered under the tour operator service the vehicle most be a tourist vehicle under Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 128 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In the present case the vehicles are not tourist vehicles under Rule 128 ibid. Therefore the demand for the period pre - 2004 is not sustainable. 5. As regards the period post - 10.09.2004 we may examine whether the appellants are engaged in the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours. We find that the appellants have only planned for providing vehicles of a specific capacity with a particular schedule. We also note that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t specified places through specified routes and timings. It is also not shown by Revenue that the appellant had authority to pick-up or drop the said persons at any place / route of their choice or they had flexibility to alter the route or timings according to their own choice or whims and fancies. Therefore the employees of only those companies/factories etc., who had entered into a contract had the authority to board the buses at pre-determined pick-up points at fixed timings agreed upon. No element of planning or scheduling is therefore shown to have been done by the appellant. They only act at the company's behest-II. Thus we find from the above that appellant were not engaged in the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
