TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no person involved as a recipient of a Rent-a-Cab service to whom the buses is handed over under a rent agreement. Therefore, in this fact arrangement of providing the buses for a particular journey on KM basis does not fall under the category of Rent-a-Cab Operator Service. The issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Shree Gayatri Tourist Bus Service Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara [2012 (5) TMI 126 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD [LB]], where it was held that the services rendered by the assessee cannot fall under the category of Rent-a-Cab services, as per the definition enshrined in Section 65(91) of the Finance Act, 1994. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/85366/13 - - - Dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the arrangement is not of a Rent-a-Cab, but it is a stage carrier. He further submits that the vehicles are also not registered as a Rent-a-Cab with RTO but the same is registered as stage carrier. He submits that they are arranging the service for the fixed amount on KM basis. It is an institutional contract for a journey to a particular place of passenger choice. Therefore, the vehicle is not handed over to any person for operation as stage carriage. It is his submission that the Department for the period upto Sept. 2008 issued show-cause notice considering the same service as Tour Operator Service. Therefore after Sept. 2008, Department again changed their stand and classified their service as Rent-a-Cab. For this reason also, demand do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of providing the buses for a particular journey on KM basis does not fall under the category of Rent-a-Cab Operator Service. This issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Shree Gayatri Tourist Bus (supra), wherein this Tribunal has passed the following order: - 32. I have considered the submissions made at length and perused the records. On perusal of the record, I find that there is no dispute as regards the fact that the assessee had an agreement with ONGC for the purpose of giving vehicles to transport the employees of ONGC to various places. As correctly pointed out by the learned counsel that Member (Judicial) had reproduced various clauses of contract in her differing order in Para 2. On perusal of such clauses, I find that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of P. Sukumar [2010 (17) S.T.R. 524 (Tri. - Chennai)], Bharat Travel [2010 (20) S.T.R. 646 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] and Express Tours and Travels were rendered by a Single Member Bench while the judgment of Sri Sai Krishna Travels is rendered by a Division Bench. I also find that the judgment of Kuldip Singh Gill was not on an issue which is before me in difference of opinion hence the said judgment may not carry the case of the Revenue any further. 4.1 In the case of Kuldip Singh Gill (supra) also in the same set of facts, it was held that the services undertaken by the bus operator is not in the nature of Rent-a-Cab service. 4.2 As regards the judgment relied upon by the learned AR on the case of S.K. Kareemun (supra), it is observed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
