9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 27/05/2008 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik wherein the activity undertaken by the appellant has been classified under 'tour operator service' and service tax demand of Rs.11,77,681/- has been confirmed against the appellant for the period 01/04/2006 to 31/05/2007 along with interest thereon. In addition, penalty has been imposed on the appellant under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us. 3. When the case was called, an application for adjournment has been filed on behalf of the appellant on the ground that the Director of the company is on urgent business tour. We find that the said case has come up on earlier occasions, i.e. on 16/07/2009, 02/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces and they have placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs 2008 (9) STR 386 and Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai 2008 (9) STR 546. Therefore, it is the appellant's contention that the activity undertaken falls under 'Rent-a-Cab Services' and not under 'Tour Operator Service'. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the appellant is discharging service under 'tour operator services' in respect of seat reservation and tour extension services undertaken by them but only on the component of bus reservation charges collected by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he confirmation of service tax demand on the 'bus reservation charges' collected by the appellant under the category of tour operator service. Consequently, the liability to pay interest on the confirmed service tax demand is also sustained. 6.3 As regards the penalties imposed, we notice that two penalties have been imposed, one under Section 76 and another under Section 78. Section 76 penalty is imposable if there is a delay or default in payment of service tax and no mens rea is required to be proved. However, imposition of penalty under Section 78 is for suppression of facts, collusion, fraud etc. In this particular case, since the activity has been in dispute since 2004, the department cannot allege suppression or willful mis-stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
