9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal is filed against order-in-appeal No. 625/2009 dated 26.07.2009 in terms of service tax demand of Rs. 16,081/- for the period 2001-2002 to 2003-2004 was confirmed (along with interest and penalties) under Tour Operator Service. 2. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant fairly concedes that vide CESTAT judgment in the case of Mangalwardhini Travels vs CCE Bhopal 2009 (13) S.T.R. 51 (Tri. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant it was a case of stage carriage and therefore the benefit of the said exemption notification should not be extended to the appellant. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. 5. At the very outset it needs to be noted that the appellant has already remitted the impugned amount of service tax which supports its contentions that it did not have any malafide intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t such services were liable to service tax under sub-clause (n) of clause 105 of section 65 of the Finance Act, which was not being levied according to the said practice during the period commencing from the 1st day of April 2000 and ending with the 4th day of February 2004; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 11C of the Central Excise Act 1944 (1 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that even in respect of persons operating contract carriage there was a practice prevailing of not paying service tax under tour operator service. Such confusion would have been even more in case of stage carriage. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that it genuinely thought that it was not liable to pay service tax gets sustainable support from the aforesaid Notification which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
