9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, read with Section 65(113) and (114) of the Finance Act. 2. The brief facts as per SCN are that both the appellants had provided Bus/Minibus to M/s Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. formerly known as M/s Recron Synthetics Ltd., Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as IPCL ) for transporting their employees, school children, families from various places to the place of their work, school etc. and received payments thereof from them during 01/04/2002 to 31/03/2006 as intimated by IPCL. The transport of passenger from one point to another point is treated as Tour Operator Service by Revenue, and such service is leviable to Service Tax. The journey from one place to another is treated as tour and vehic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notices vide C. No. V(MP) ST-912) Adj-6572007, dated 08/06/2007 and C. No. VI(MP) ST(12) Adj-66/2007, dated 08/06/2007 were issued to the appellant No. 1 and the appellant No. 2 respectively demanding Service Tax amounting to Rs. 11,47,517.00 and Rs. 8,30,824.00 respectively under proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and proposed penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority held that the appellant No. 1 liable to pay Service Tax of Rs. 4,54,539.00 and Education Cess of Rs. 4,468.00 (Total Rs. 4,59,007.00) during the period 01/04/2002 to 31/03/2006 and appellant No. 2 liable to pay Service Tax of Rs. 3,28,839.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finitions under the Finance Act and also under the Motor Vehicles Act, as referred to in the Finance Act, and was pleased to allow the appeal, observing I find the employees of a particular factory/establishment and their children were transported from one place to another regularly for enabling them to go to their workplaces/schools. This act does not come within the ambit of tour as defined in the Act as the same is neither a pleasure trip nor a visit for special purpose to learn or look around the place visited. Contract carriages, of course, is one of the basis for holding a person as tour operator but it is necessarily required that there should be an involvement of 'tourists vehicle', which is not the case here in. Moreover, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial consideration clearly established that the party is engaged in tourist vehicle business, covered by a permit. 5. Heard the parties. 6. Having considered the grounds of appeal and on perusal of the records, we are satisfied that the activity done by the respondent does not come under the definition of 'tour operator', which means any person engaged in the business of planning, scheduling, organising or arranging tour (which may include arrangement for accommodation, site seeing or other similar services) by any mode of transport and includes any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourists vehicle covered by a permit as granted under the Motor Vehicle Acts and Rules thereunder. We also find that it is nowhere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
