2015 (7) TMI 1135

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xamining the Contract Carriage Permit observed that the said three vehicles were permitted as contract carriage under Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and are not covered under the definition of Tourist Vehicles, within the meaning of Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read with Rule 82 to 85 and 128 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988. In view of that, Commissioner (Appeals) held .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Nair, Authorized Representative for the Respondent. ORDER Per : Mr. P.K. Das; Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. None appears on behalf of the Respondent. There is no application for adjournment. Hence, we proceed to take up the appeal for disposal. 3. After hearing the learned Authorized Representative and on perusal of the records, we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... position in respect of the said vehicles and to pass order. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the Contract Carriage Permit observed that the said three vehicles were permitted as contract carriage under Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and are not covered under the definition of Tourist Vehicles, within the meaning of Section 2(43) of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X