9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest for delay in payment of tax. He imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellants under sections 76, 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 ('the Act'). A penalty of Rs. 1,000 was also imposed under section 77 of the Act. Vide the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the original authority. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Secretary, Federation of Bus Operators Association of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India [2007] 6 STT 49 in passing the order. In terms of this judgment, operation of contract carriage was covered under 'Tour Operator' service. He also relied on another judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sri Pandian Travels v. CCE [2007] 7 STT 159 holding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2009] 20 STT 281 (Ahd. - CESTAT). (b) Gatulal V. Patel v. CCE [Stay Application No. 373 of 2007, dated 9-5-2007]. In both these decisions, facts were that the assessee had operated buses as contract carriages which had not been tourist vehicles under Motor Vehicles Rules. The Tribunal held that contract carriage operated in vehicles without tourist permit was not an activity covered by the entry 'Tour Operator' and decided the issue in favour of the assessees in both cases. 3. Ld. JDR reiterates the reasoning contained in the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions made by both sides. In the instant case, the appellant was engaged by M/s. Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. (KMML) to transport t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd back cannot be held to have been 'the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours'. Therefore, the demand for the period with effect from 10-9-2004 also is not sustainable. In the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Chennai cited by the appellant, their Lordships examined under liability of identical activity to service tax and amended the entry as follows:— ". . .Transport of employees from different places to a common destination like a place of work, such as a factory in the instant case and bringing them back on a daily basis does not appear to be planned, scheduled, organized, arrangement of tours using the buses of the appellants. The appellants have therefore, made out a prima facie case against the demand and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
