TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r operator as part of the package tour to the person undertaking the tour. According to the Department, if even one service mentioned at Sl. No. 2(n)(i) is not provided, the service provider will not be entitled to the abatement contemplated under Sl. No. 2(n)(i) - It is not possible to accept the submission of the Department. Entry at Sl. No. 2(n)(i) does not require the service provider to provide each and every service mentioned in the Explanation. The meaning assigned to package tour in the Explanation is when transportation, accommodation for stay, food, tourist guide, entry to monuments and other similar services in relation to tour are provided by the tour operator as part of the package tour to the person undertaking the tour. There is no reason why if some of the service(s) are not provided, the abatement as contemplated under Sl. No. 2(n)(i) should not be available to the service provider. The service has to be provided by a tour operator in relation to a package tour. It would also be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. [ 1988 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT ]. The Supreme Court observed that the expression in relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d so that the Respondent was eligible to avail an abatement of 60% only. 3. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 19 March, 2013 was issued to the Respondent regarding non-payment of Service Tax amounting to ₹ 22,62,511/- and also proposing a penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Act for contravening the provisions of sections 67 and 68 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Respondent filed a reply to the show cause notice on 22 April, 2013. The Additional Commissioner, by order dated 24 March, 2013 held that the services provided by the Respondent would be covered by entry 2(n)(iii) of the Notification and hence the abatement available to the Respondent would be 60% of the gross receipt charged and not 75%. The order, therefore, confirmed the demand of ₹ 22,62,511/- and ordered it to be recovered under section 73(2) of the Act along with interest under section 75 and penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Act. 4. The Respondent filed an Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) submitting that the services provided by the Appellants were covered at Sl. No. 2(n)(i) of the Notification since it depended on a tour operator providing services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shri Rahul Lakhwani, learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, submitted that from a plain reading of the entry at Sl. No. 2(n)(i) of the Notification, it would be clear that there is no requirement that a service provider must provide all the services contemplated therein and even if some of the services contemplated are provided, the service provider would be entitled to the abatement as contemplated under entry at Sl. No. 2(n)(i) of the Notification. He, therefore, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) committed no illegality in not sustaining that part of the demand. In support of his submission, learned Counsel placed reliance upon the two decisions of the Supreme Court in Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India Ors. [1988 (36) ELT 201 (SC)] and Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. vs General Electric Company Anr. [(1984) 4 SCC 671] and a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Touraids (I) Travel Services vs Commissioner of Central Excise [2014 (35) STR 234 (Alld)]. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Authorized Representative of the Department and the learned Counsel for the Respondent. 9. In order to appreciate the submissions, it would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person, by a tour operator in relation to a tour, if the tour operator is providing services solely of arranging or booking accommodation for any person in relation to a tour. (a) The invoice, bill or challan issued indicates that it is towards charges for such accommodation, and (b) this exemption shall not apply in such cases where the invoice, bill or challan issued by the tour operator, in relation to a tour, only includes the service charges for arranging or booking accommodation for any person and does not include the cost of such accommodation. 10 (iii) Services, other than services specified in (i) and (ii) above, provided or to be provided to any person, by a tour operator in relation to a tour. The bill issued indicates that the amount charged in the bill is the gross amount charged for such a tour. 40 10. The case of the Department is that the Respondent is providing service contemplated under Rule 2(n)(iii) of the Notification, while the case of the Respondent is that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e word in relation having vide scope to cover all the services which are provided in relation to the package tour which can be one service or multiple services. In the appellants case it is found that the appellants have provided multiple services i.e local transportation, joy rides, entry to monuments, guide fees, assistance etc. which are the part of package tour, therefore, the said services qualify in relation to the package tour and accordingly covered under Sr. No. 2(n)(i) of the said notification. In the explanation there is nothing that the complete tour package are required to be provided. In the contrary, it is mentioned that if the tour operator provided as part of the package tour to the person undertaking the tour, the same qualify as package tour. In this case, the appellants are engaged in providing the part of the services to main tour operation in relation to the package tour. Thus, any service provided in relation to the package tour is eligible for exemption under Sr. No. 2(n)(i) of the said notification. Further, on going through the Sr. No. 2(n)(ii) the same is related if the tour operator is providing services solely of arranging or booking accommodatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prehensiveness which might both have a direct significance as well as an indirect significance depending on the context, see State Wakf Board v. Abdul Aziz (A.I.R. 1968 Madras 79, 81 paragraphs 8 and 10,following and approving Nitai Charan Bagchi v. Suresh Chandra Paul (66 C.W.N. 767), Shyam Lal v. M. Shayamlal (A.I.R. 1933 All. 649) and 76 Corpus Juris Secundum 621. Assuming that the investments in shares and in lands do not form part of the undertakings but are different subject matters, even then these would be brought within the purview of the vesting by reason of the above expressions. In this connection reference may be made to 76 Corpus Juris Secundum at pages 620 and 621 where it is stated that the term relate is also defined as meaning to bring into association or connection with. It has been clearly mentioned that relating to has been held to be equivalent to or synonymous with as to concerning with and pertaining to . The expression pertaining to is an expression of expansion and not of contraction. 15. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. 16. The Allahabad High Court in Touraids (I) Travel Services followed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
