Appellant's Bus Provision Not Tour Operator Service; Service Tax Demands Set Aside

The Tribunal found that the appellant's provision of buses to a company for employee transportation did not qualify as tour operator services. The demands for service tax were set aside for the period before a specific date due to the disputed liability. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the need to meet specific criteria for classification as a tour operator and the inapplicability of the extended limitation period in such disputed liability cases.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant's activity of providing buses to a company on a contract basis falls under the category of tour operator service.
2. Whether the demand of service tax under the category of tour operator service is sustainable.
3. Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable for the demands prior to a specific date.

Analysis:
1. The appellant provided buses to a company for transporting employees, and the Revenue claimed it as tour operator service. The appellant argued that their case is similar to precedents like CCE, Bhopal vs. Suresh Kumar Advani and Capricorn Transways Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad. The Revenue relied on the Friends Tour & Travels case. The Tribunal examined the issue of liability in providing transportation services and cited the Capricorn Transways Pvt. Ltd. case, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination by the adjudicating authority.

2. The Tribunal considered the definition of a tour operator post a specific date and concluded that the appellant did not meet the criteria as they were not planning or organizing tours but simply providing buses at the company's request. For the period before that date, the demands were set aside as the liability of service tax under tour operator service was in dispute, rendering the extended period of limitation inapplicable.

3. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the demand against the appellant was not sustainable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The decision highlighted the importance of meeting specific criteria to be classified as a tour operator and the relevance of the extended period of limitation based on the dispute over service tax liability.

---