9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per: Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in both these appeals is as to whether during the period from June 2002 to March 2005, the Appellants who were providing 47 seater semi-deluxe buses to M/s. IOCL Panipat and M/s. L&T Limited for conveyance of their staff from Karnal to Panipat Refinery and back, were providing "tour operator's service" within the meaning of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing tours in a tourist vehicle. It is order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which have been challenged by the Revenue in these two appeals. 2. Heard both the sides. 2.1 Shri Sunil Kumar, the learned departmental representative pleaded that the appellants have to be treated as tour operators in view of Hon'ble Madras High Court judgment in case of Sri Pandyan Travels v. CCE, Chennai-II reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aras 36 and 41 of the judgment has held that the permit contemplated under Section 65(52) of the Finance Act thereunder need not necessarily be a tourist permit-it can be any permit granted under the Central Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules framed-the only condition being that the vehicle should be a 'tourist vehicle' within the meaning of Section 2(43) of Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 128 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hmd.). 3. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides. It is an admitted position that the vehicles being used for operating tours are not 'tourist vehicle', as defined under Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rules 128 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. Therefore, in view of Hon'ble Madras High court's judgment in case of Secretary, Federation of Bus-Operato ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
