TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Motor Vehicle Act, read with the Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, would not be covered by the definition of ‘Tour Operator’. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No.ST/844 & 845 of 2008-CU(DB) - Final Orders Nos.50417-50418/2014 - Dated:- 22-1-2014 - Shri G. Raghuram and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Govind Dixit, DR For the Respondent : Shri Z.U. Alvi, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per Rakesh Kumar: The respondent during the period of dispute i.e. April, 2000 to August, 2002 and September, 2005 to November, 2005 provided buses to M/s. Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. for picking up of their employees from various places for bringing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der by reiterating the grounds of appeal and pleaded that even during the period of dispute, a person operating tours in a contract carriage was covered by the definition of Tour Operator and service in relation to operating the tours provided by the Respondent would be taxable. 4. Shri Z.U. Alvi, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that during the period of dispute, the definition of Tour Operator covered the person, who operates the tour in a tourist vehicle and in terms of definition of Tourist Vehicle as given in Section 65 (114), the meaning of this term is as given 2 (43) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, that in terms of Section 2 (43) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tourist Vehicle means a contract carriage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to their clients were ordinary buses with carrying capacity of 52 passengers and, that the vehicles were neither registered as Tourist vehicles under Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act nor fulfilled the conditions of Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. This finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been challenged by the Department. On the contrary, the Department s contention in the grounds of appeal is that both, a contract carriage conforming to the specifications prescribed in Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules as well as an ordinary contract carriages are covered by the definition of Tourist Vehicle as given in Section 65(114) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicle Act and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules. Thus, during the period of dispute, a person operating tours would be covered by the definition of tour operator under Section 65(115) only if the tour was being operated by him in a tourist vehicle, as defined in Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is in view of these provisions that Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Secretary Federation of Bus Operator (supra) has held that Section 165(105)(n) covers only the tours operated in tourist vehicles which conformed to the specifications prescribed in this regard in Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. Since during the period of dispute, a person operating tours in a contract carriage, not covered by the definition of Tourist Vehicle , was not covered and only th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
