TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 881
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Operator. He pointed out that respondents M/s Shreenath Travellers has leased out their buses to M/s Hazira Employees Transport Association at RIL, Hazira as per written agreement. The respondents were picking up the employee of RIL from their residences and dropping them to the plant at Hazira and dropping them from plant to their residences. The Commissioner in his order held that the vehicles used by the respondents for the purpose were contract carriages but the same do not qualify as tourist vehicles as they do not hold the tourist vehicle permit from the transport authority. The Commissioner has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of Secy. Federn. Of Bus-Operators Assn. of T.N. vs. Union of India 2001 (134) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icle must conform to the conditions prescribed under Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules." The Commissioner in the said order held that since the vehicle used by appellant is not 'Tourist Vehicle' no tax can be levied under the category of 'Tour Operators'. He argued that the Adjudicating Authority has wrongly held that the Vehicles involved in the instant case were not 'Tourist Vehicle'. He cited the summary of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Secy. Federn. Of Bus-Operators Assn. of T.N. (supra) in the Excus C.D. The said summary of para 41 & 41 of the said order which reads as under: "Service Tax-Contract Carriage Operators- 'Tourist Permit' not required but a 'user of tourist vehicle' by tour operator ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court of Gujarat. It is noticed that in the grounds of appeal it has been mentioned that in an identical issue of Ashok Travels, the Commissioner (CE) filed SLP (C) No. 32264/2009 before Hon'ble Apex Court against the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. He pointed out that Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat which had upheld the order of Tribunal setting aside the demand and remanded the matter again to Tribunal over de novo consideration. 3. Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of Tribunal in the case of Rajan Travels 2015(7) TMI 1135-CESTAT AHMEDABAD, Patel Tours & Travels 2010 (7) TMI 298-CESTAT, Ahmedabad and also in the case of Bhara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout any evidence and it neither challenges the veracity or the contents of the certificate. As regard the other grievance of the appellant that the learned authority has himself seen the vehicle and found that the vehicles predominantly covered the specifications in Rule 128 of Motor Vehicle rules, 1988. It is pertinent that Lower Adjudicating Authority refer to one of the sub-clause of the Rules regarding painting of a strip on the vehicle and silent regarding remaining 12 clauses of total of 13 clauses. Once the vehicle is out of purview of the definition of the tourist vehicle the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court referred supra is of no avail to the appellant. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied upon the ....