2009 (1) TMI 756

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides on the stay application. 2. The applicant claims that they are plying buses on different routes and Commissioner has held them to be tour operators falling under Section 65(115) of Finance Act, 1994 and confirmed the demand of Rs. 22,81,529/- as service tax along with interest and imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78. 3. The learned advocate submits t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tice dated 17-10-05 proposing demand for the periods from 2000-2001, 2003-2004 is entirely time-barred. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mangalwardhini Travels v. CCE, Bhopal [2009 (13) S.T.R. 51 (Tri.-Del.) = 2008 (88) RLT 963 (CESTAT-Del)]. He also pleads financial hardship and submits that buses are purchased on loans and they have to pay EMI. However, he has not produce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X