Prima facie classification of bus chartering under rent-a-cab service led to partial pre-deposit and stay relief.

Chartering buses on specified routes was held, at the prima facie stage, not to be shown outside rent-a-cab service because the record did not dislodge the department's view that the essential features of tour operation were absent and the cited earlier order was factually distinguishable. As no strong prima facie case or substantiated financial hardship was made out, full waiver of pre-deposit was refused. Limited interlocutory relief was granted instead: the appellant was directed to make a partial pre-deposit, with recovery of the balance demand and penalties stayed on compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case that the activity of chartering buses on specified routes was not assessable under rent-a-cab service, and (ii) whether the appellant was entitled to full waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Issue (i): whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case that the activity of chartering buses on specified routes was not assessable under rent-a-cab service.

Analysis: The appellant's case was tested against the nature of the activity and the statutory description relied upon by the department. The record indicated that the buses were chartered under contracts and operated by the appellant as owner of the buses. The available material did not, at this stage, satisfactorily dislodge the department's contention that the essential features of tour operation were absent and that the earlier batch order cited by the appellant was distinguishable on facts.

Conclusion: The appellant did not establish a prima facie case against the service tax demand.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant was entitled to full waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis: Since no strong prima facie case was shown and the plea of financial hardship was not substantiated, complete waiver was not justified. At the same time, the demand did not warrant insistence on the entire disputed amount at the interlocutory stage, and limited deposit was considered sufficient for protective relief.

Conclusion: Full waiver was declined, but the appellant was granted partial relief by directing a limited pre-deposit and by staying recovery of the balance and penalties on compliance.

Final Conclusion: The interlocutory relief was granted only in part, with partial deposit required as a condition for stay of the remaining demand and penalties.

---