Tour operator service levy: Mere bus hiring was treated as insufficient to justify predeposit recovery in the appeal.

The Tribunal found that buses supplied for marriage parties, pilgrimages and employee transport did not, on the available record, amount to tour operator service because the appellant was only hiring out buses and was not shown to be planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours. Relying on an earlier Tribunal ruling on similar facts, it treated mere vehicle rental as insufficient to attract the levy. On that basis, it accepted that a prima facie case existed for complete waiver of predeposit and for stay of recovery during the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in a service tax dispute concerning alleged tour operator service.

Analysis: The demand was founded on the allegation that buses supplied for marriage parties, pilgrimages and transport of employees fell within tour operator service. The relevant definition required a person to be engaged in planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours by any mode of transport. The record did not show that the appellant was engaged in such activity; it was found to be only hiring out buses. The reasoning was supported by a prior Tribunal decision on similar facts, where merely renting vehicles without organizing tours was held insufficient to sustain the levy.

Conclusion: The appellant was held to have established a prima facie case for complete waiver of predeposit and for stay of recovery during the pendency of the appeal.

---