Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (10) TMI 458

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t:- it would appear that the impugned service rendered by the appellant using a contract carriage would fall under the category of tour operator service. – the case is remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication on the limited aspect of eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of exemption under Notification No.20/2009-ST, dated 07.07.2009 as made applicable with effect from 01.04.2000, invokability of the extended period and imposability of mandatory penalty under Section 78 ibid. - Decided against the assessee. - Appeal No. ST/603/2009-CU[DB] - Final Order No. 52281/2015 - Dated:- 30-4-2015 - G Raghuram, President And R K Singh, Member (T) For the Petitioner : Shri Manish Saharah, Adv For the Responden .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t was operating buses as stage carriage, although the permit was for contract carriage and therefore it was not providing tour operator service. It also stated that such service has since been exempted under Notification No.20/2009-ST, dated 07.07.2009, which was given retrospective effect from 01.04.2000 vide Section 75 of the Finance Act, 2011. It relied upon the judgement of CESTAT in the case of M/s. Eagle Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rajkot - [2011-TIOL-876-CESTAT-AHM] which remanded the case to the lower authority in the wake of the said Notification. (iii) There was a confusion with regard to leviability of the service tax on such service as is evident from the fact that the said Notification was given retrospective effect about tw .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ore transportation of goods on the appellant's buses would amount to transportation of goods in a goods carriage. BSS (more precisely support services of business or commerce) is defied under Section 65 (104c) of the Finance Act, 1994 as under:- Support Services of Business or Commerce means services provided in relation to business or commerce and includes evaluation of prospective customers, telemarketing, processing of purchase orders and fulfilment services, information and tracking of delivery schedules, managing distribution and logistics, customer relationship management services, accounting and processing of transactions, operational assistance for marketing, formulation of customer service and pricing policies, infrastruc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mode of transport and includes any person engaged in business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the rules made there under; A tourist vehicle is defined under Section 65 (114) read with Section 2(43) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under:- Tourist vehicle means a contract carriage constructed or adapted and equipped and maintained in accordance with such specifications as may be prescribed in this behalf; Thus, it would appear that the impugned service rendered by the appellant using a contract carriage would fall under the category of tour operator service. Indeed in the case of M/s. Ideal Travels Others Vs. CCE, Mangalore - [2011-TIOL-1850-CESTAT-BANG], CEST .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the retrospective applicability (with effect from 01.04.2000) of Notification No.20/2009-ST to plead that there was confusion about the issue during the relevant time. This pleading was not made (as it could not have been made) before the adjudicating authority because the said Notification was not in existence at the time of issuance of the impugned order. This aspect has been kept in mind while remanding this case for de novo adjudication without expressing any opinion thereon. 6. In the light of the foregoing, we pass the following Order:- (i) The demand of ₹ 98,424/- is upheld as uncontested. (ii) Demand of ₹ 9,18,286/- under Business Support Service is set aside. (iii) As regards the demand under tour operator s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates