TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Technical) Sh. Sanjay Jain, Ld. AR for the appellant Sh. A.K. Batra, Ld. Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok K. Arya 1. The Revenue is in appeal against the Order-in-Original No.92-93/2012 dated 23.05.2012 passed by the Commissioner Service Tax, Delhi, whereunder he drops all the proceedings initiated against the Respondent namely M/s Dewan Travles Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Revenue has been represented by the Ld. AR, Shri Sanjay Jain and the Respondent namely M/s Dewan Travles Pvt. Ltd. has been represented by the Ld. Advocate, Shri A.K. Batra. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue based on the appeal memorandum inter alia submits as under: i. The respondent, M/s Dewan Travels Pvt. Ltd. was also provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case and the submissions of both the sides. 5. The impugned order passed by Commissioner adjudicates both the Show Cause Notices i.e. dated 22.04.2010 and 21.04.2011 issued to the respondent by this order dropping the proceedings initiated formerly by the issue of said Show Cause Notices. The Commissioner in the impugned Order has held that the respondent is engaged in the promotion of tours which is not included in the definition of the tour operators service . Commissioner mentions that the definition speaks of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours only and not promoting tours. Hence in no way the noticee can fall under the meaning of tour operator. 5.1 Commissioner in the impugned order further menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . pays in Indian currency, then there is no convertible foreign exchange remittance. Therefore, impugned order wrongly holds that respondent's tour operator services relating to outbound package tour amount to export of services and that the respondent is not liable to pay the service tax demanded. 7 . After careful consideration of the facts on record and the submissions of both sides, it appears that the subject matter was discussed and decided by CESTAT Delhi in the case of COX Kings India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi 2014 (35) S.T.R. 817(Tri.-Del.). The CESTAT in this case inter alia observes as under:- i. The composite activity of operation of outbound tours and planning, scheduling, organizing or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
