2016 (3) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as rendered using luxury bus which was having permit under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the said bus was not a stage carriage but a contract carriage. Thus, the respondent provided tour operator service. Indeed the issue is squarely covered against the respondent by CESTAT judgement in the case of Friends Tour & Travels Vs. CCE Noida [2014 (1) TMI 44 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein it was held that the activity of providing buses to LG Electronics for dropping of staff was covered under definition of tour and the assessee was covered under the definition of tour operator and was liable to pay service tax under Section 65 (105) (n) read with Section 65 (115) ibid. - Decided in favor of revenue. - Application No.ST/CROSS/240/2009-CU[DB] In Ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e rendered by the respondent clearly fell under the category of Tour Operator service and the respondent satisfied the definition of tour operator. 4. In its cross objections, the respondent contended that it was not engaged in the business of planning scheduling organising or arranging tours and was only engaged by IFFCO to carry their staff/families for marketing, schools and working shifts and general shifts from residential colony to factory/factory to residence and cited several judgements published in 2006 and 2007. 5. When the case was taken up for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Ld. Departmental Representative cited the judgement of CESTAT in the case of Friends Tour Travels Vs. CCE Noida [2014 (3 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CX 0152], Gayatri Enterprises Vs.2007 (01) LCX 0177] and Gautulal V. Patel Vs. CCE, Vadodara-II [2007 (05) LCX 013]. The CESTAT judgements in the cases of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. CCE, Chennai was delivered by a Single Member Bench and the judgement of Gayartri Enterprises is a judgement of Commissioner (Appeals). and therefore we are not going into the facts of these cases. In the case of Gatulal V. Patel Vs. CCE, Vadodara-II (supra) it is stated that the vehicles in which the tour was performed should have conformed to the specification of a tourist vehicle. It is not the case of the appellant that its vehicle did not conform to such specifications. Other judgement of CCE, Vadodara Vs. Gandhi Travels [2007 )92) LCX 0051] .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X