TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore demand of service tax on this activity is also liable to be set aside. - Appeal No. 1007 of 2010 - 533/2012 - Dated:- 18-7-2012 - Shri P. G. Chacko and Shri M. Veeraiyan, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. Prasanna Krishnan, Consultant For the Respondent: Mr. R. K. Singla, Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: M. Veeraiyan This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore No. 5/2010 (De novo) dated 12.2.2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows: (a) The appellants are operating point to point buses for transport of passengers, providing buses on hire to companies and supplying buses for special trips. (b) A letter dated 3.7.2002 was issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1227/2009 dated 20.10.2009 remanded the case for fresh decision. (g) The impugned order stands passed in pursuance of Tribunal s remand order dated 20.10.2009 confirming demand of service tax of ₹ 4,98,90,210/- along with interest and imposing penalties under Sections 76, 77 78. 4. The learned Consultant representing the appellant challenged the impugned order on various grounds. (a) After narrating the activities of the appellants, he submits that they were merely running point to point bus service with vehicles owned by them and having contract carriage permits. Such activities could not be treated as that of a tourist operator as they did not arrange, schedule / ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 65 of the said Finance Act. A corrigendum dated 31.8.2009 was issued to the above Notification for substituting the words contract carriage or tourist vehicles with a permit in the place of contract carriage permit. The Notification No. 20/2009 was given retrospective effect from 1st day of April 2000 by Section 72 of the Finance Act, 2011. In view of the above, the demand of service tax under the category of Tour Operators Services does not survive. (e) In view of the absence of any stay by the Hon ble High Court preventing issue of show-cause notice extended period of limitation could not be invoked and penalty could not be imposed. (f) Further, the Central Government considering the genuines of the claim by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period 2004-05 by show-cause notice dated 29.9.2007 invoking extended period of limitation is justified. 6.1. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. 6.2. The appellants have claimed that they have operated the vehicles from point to point and that such activities cannot come under the category of tour and that, they cannot be considered as Tour Operators. This claim cannot be accepted in the light of the decision of the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 804 to 828/2011 dated 14.12.2001 in the cases of Ideal Travels Others. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below: 9. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. After examining the definitions of tour and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the distance between such places. In other words, the passengers were touring in the buses of the assessees. These buses were tourist vehicles within the meaning of this term defined under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Indisputably, the assessees were engaged in the business of operating tours in tourist vehicles covered by permits granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the rules made thereunder. As they were running the buses on pre-determined routes in scheduled hours under such permits, they can be held to have undertaken the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours. In other words, the assessees are squarely covered by the main part of the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction of the appellant regarding taxability of the said activities under tour operators services, we accept the alternative plea of the appellants that the appellants are eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 20/2009. Therefore demand of service tax on this activity is also liable to be set aside. 6.4. The appellants have undisputedly undertaken booking of tickets during the period 2004-05 for other service providers who are similarly placed as tour operators. They have received consideration from the said tour operators towards the services rendered. This is clearly towards promotion or marketing of services provided by the client which is included under the definition of Business Auxiliary Services in terms of Section 65 (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
