9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) has taken view that such trips cannot be held planning, scheduling and organizing etc and in para 5.6 it was recorded that demand is confirmed on the ground that tours were organized for picnic etc. Therefore this activity will fall under the planning and scheduling, organizing or arrange tours etc. and these activity are covered in terms of first part of definition of "Tour Opeator", irrespective of the fact that vehicle of the applicants are not tourist vehicle. He submits that facts recorded in 5.4 and observation in para 5.6 are contrary in nature therefore there is apparent mistake in the order. He further submits that no findings was given on the plea of limitation raised by the applicant. 3. Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Ld. Asstt. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrived in the following cases. (a) CCE, Vadodara vs. Ghansyam Travels (2009 (15) STR 45 (Tri. Ahmd.) (b) Gatulal V. Patel vs. CCD, Vadodara II (2007 (7) STR (Tri. Ahmd.) 5. The contention of the appellants that such activity is more appropriately classifiable under 'rent-a-cab' service from 1.6.2007 is upheld. 6. Further the exemption under Notification No. 4/2004-ST dated 31.3.2004 for services provided to units of SEZs is also clearly applicable to the appellants. However, in so far as the touring vehicles for specific incidental or auxiliary services such as tours, marriages, picnic, etc. there is no doubt that such activities are invariably planned, scheduled or organized and would certainly fall under the category of Tour Ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were organized for picnics etc. Therefore this activity will fall under the ambit of planning, scheduling etc in terms of the first part of the definition irrespective of the fact that the vehicle is not a tourist vehicle. This is because the two parts of the definition are independent and for the activity to be taxable, either part may be satisfied. Hence the demand of service tax against M/s. General Travels is upheld. However as the confusion on taxability remained for a long period as evident from various judicial pronouncements, we find there is reasonable cause to waive the penalties in this case in terms of Section 80 and we do so. From the above findings, it can be seen that the findings in para 5.4 flowing from the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
