TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dv. For the Respondent : Shri Pramod Kumar, JCDR. PER : S S Kang As the common issue arise in these two stay petitions, therefore they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicant filed these stay applications for total waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs.1.56 crore. The demand is made on the ground that the applicant provided tour operator service and had not paid service tax for the period from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2010. Two show cause notices were issued for demanding duty and for penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand alongwith interest. The adjudicating authority in respect of first show cause notice allowed the benefit of section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 and had not imposed any penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than Tourism Development Corporation was undertaking operation in respect of regularising visitors to the park. In the circumstances the demand prior to 1.10.2008 is not sustainable as the activity conducted by Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation. The applicant is also entitled for abatement as provided under Notification No.1/06 to the extent of 60%. The applicants are not planning, arranging and scheduling tours to the visitors. The applicants are charging a fixed amount for entry in the Port. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that the applicants were engaged in the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours by any mode of transport and includes any person in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urism Development Corporation was undertaking operation in respect of regularising visitors to the park it was only with effect from 1.10.2008, the applicant was undertaking the activity. In the circumstances, the demand after 1.10.2008 comes approximately to Rs.43 lakhs. The benefit of notification No.1/2006 now claimed by the applicant was not clamed before the lower authority. Therefore, contention of the applicant regarding eligibility of notification has not gone by the adjudicating authority. We are now at the stay stage, therefore aspect of benefit of notification will be gone at the time of regular hearing. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the issue raised in respect of time bar, we direct the applicant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
