TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No.ST/25822/2013-CU[DB] - Final Order No.20065/2014 - Dated:- 10-1-2014 - Mr. G. Raghuram and Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Seetharamaiah, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri K. Sambi Reddy, DC (AR) JUDGEMENT Per Hon ble G. Raghuram: Heard Shri B. Seetharamaiah, Ld. Consultant for the petitioner/appellant and Shri Sambi Reddy, Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Authorised Representative for Revenue. At the stage of considering the petition for stay, since a very short issue is involved, we dispose of the substantial appeal itself. In the circumstances, we waive pre-deposit. 2. The appellant is the assessee and has preferred the appeal against the adjudication order dated 23.07.2012 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arges representing discount received from insurance companies on premia paid on its buses. No particulars or evidence in support of the several amounts received was however provided by the appellant before the adjudicating authority or during the proceedings. The appellant claimed exemption from liability to tax by relying on exemption Notification No.20/2009-ST, dated 07.07.2009. In para 19 of the adjudicating order, the Ld. Commissioner dealt with this contention and rejected the same by observing, and in our considered view rightly, that exemption Notification No.20/2009-ST excludes from the domain of exemption provided thereunder, services relating to tourism, conducted tours, charter or hire services; and since the appellant had provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he definition of tour operator defined in Section 65 (115); and the service provided by the petitioner falls within the ambit of the taxable service enumerated in Section 65 (115)(n), the petitioner cannot gainfully contend that it did not provide the taxable tour operate service. 6. Ld. Consultant for the appellant places reliance on the decision of Ld. Division Bench of the Tribunal in Usha Breco Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut [2007(6) S.T.R. 117 (Tri. - Del.)] to support his contention that the appellant did not provide the taxable tour operator service. In Usha Breco Ltd., the assesses appeal was allowed only on the basis of an earlier final order of the Tribunal in Service Tax Appeal No.s178-179/2005 reported in [2006 (4) STR 88 (T)]. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
