2014 (8) TMI 854 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal upholds Revenue's appeal on service tax demands for travel service providers. Lack of compliance emphasized.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD Versus M/s DWIVEDI TRAVELS AND M/s CHANDRA TRAVES

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals in a case concerning service tax demands dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) for two travel service ... Rent a cab service – providing buses/mini-buses - transportation of school children, Staff Members & Family from fixed point to other point - Penalty - whether the assessee would be liable for service tax when providing the services of motor cabs/ maxi cabs - Held that:- issue involved in these appeals is squarely covered in favour of Revenue in the CESTAT final order [2013 (7) TMI 816 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] in case of Jai Santoshi Maa Travellers and Ajai Kumar Gupta & Co and also in the CESTAT final order [2014 (1) TMI 44 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] in respect of M/s. Friends Tour & Travels Vs. CCE, Noida. It is also seen that there is no representation from the side of respondents which is indicative of the fact that they have nothing to say in their defence. The fact that they had neither taken registration, nor filed any returns, nor paid service tax in clear evidence of suppression of facts on the part of respondents when no reasons are advanced on their part for the same. - Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues:1. Service tax demand dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Classification of service provided by respondents under Tour Operator Service.3. Lack of representation from the respondents.Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to two appeals filed by the Revenue against the dropping of service tax demands by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the cases of two travel service providers. The respondents, who provided buses/mini-buses for transporting school children, staff members, and families, did not register, file returns, or pay service tax from April 2002 to March 2006. The Original adjudicating authority had confirmed the demands along with interest and penalties, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned these orders, stating that the service did not fall under the Tour Operator Service category.2. The Revenue contended that the service provided by the respondents fell under the definition of Tour Operator Service as per the contract with M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Ltd. The Revenue argued that the service involved planning, organizing, and arranging tours by transporting school children and employees, which squarely fit the definition of a tour operator under the law. The absence of representation from the respondents further weakened their case, indicating a lack of defense and evidence to counter the Revenue's claims.3. The Tribunal considered the facts and precedents, noting that similar issues had been decided in favor of the Revenue in previous cases like Anil Kumar Agnihotri and others Vs. CCE Kanpur and M/s. Friends Tour & Travels Vs. CCE, Noida. The lack of response from the respondents, coupled with their failure to register, file returns, or pay service tax, indicated a clear suppression of facts. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the Orders-in-appeal and allowed the Revenue's appeals, emphasizing the importance of compliance and the consequences of non-cooperation in legal proceedings.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal interpretations, and the final decision reached by the Tribunal, providing a comprehensive overview of the case.