9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 109/2009(PB) - Dated:- 4-3-2009 - Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) and Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri L.B. Yadav, D.R., for the Revenue. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)] - This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 129/CE/2004 dated 15.4.2004. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:- (a) The appellant is rendering services as Tour Operator in the following manner. The foreign tourists contact their local travels agents who contact Indian travel agent (the present appellant) and as per the requirements of the foreign tourists accommodation in hotels and train tickets, air tickets were arr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pursued in French Court and in pursuance of the decision of the French Court they received a sum of Rs. 23,12,938/- in installments during the period 1.9.97 to 17.7.98. This amount relates to services rendered when service tax was not leviable on tour operator and, therefore, demand is not sustainable. He also submits that in respect of delegations by AMT it was initially planned during the month of February/March, 1998 payments were received in advance. The event was postponed to January, 2000 and the services were rendered when there was no service tax leviable as the same was withdrawn from 18.7.98. Therefore, in respect of this amount no service tax is payable. 4.3 The demand of service tax without on the value of train ticket on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for under notification No. 40/97 should not be denied. If the facts are as claimed by the learned Advocate, then the benefit of notification No. 40/97 should be extended. However, this requires to be verified with other corroborative evidences which the appellant claimed to have produced. 6.2 Regarding the submission that in respect of services rendered prior to 1.9.97, payments have received during the disputed period in pursuance of the French Court decision submission is acceptable. Therefore, we hold the demand relating to this amount is to be set aside. 6.3 Regarding the amount received in advance in respect of event planned in 1998 but which took place in January, 2000, it is claimed that the services were rendered only in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
