TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal modifies penalty under Finance Act, upholds demand for normal period, sets aside extended period.</h1> <h3>HANS TRAVELS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, INDORE (M.P.)</h3> HANS TRAVELS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, INDORE (M.P.) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Classification of services provided by the appellant.2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 20/2009-ST.3. Validity of the demand raised by the Commissioner.4. Applicability of the extended period for raising the demand.5. Imposition of penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.Summary:1. Classification of Services Provided by the Appellant:The appellant, engaged in interstate and intrastate passenger transport services, was alleged to be providing taxable services as a 'Tour Operator' due to the possession of tourist permits for their buses. The Commissioner confirmed the demand under the category of Tour Operator Service on the basis that the services rendered were towards tourism, conducted tours, charter, or hire services.2. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 20/2009-ST:The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to examine the appellant's eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 20/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009. The Commissioner, in the de novo adjudication, held that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the receipts were from passenger transportation only and not from tourism, conducted tours, charter, or hire services. The Commissioner observed that the appellant's vehicles were tourist vehicles and not stage carriages, thus not eligible for the exemption.3. Validity of the Demand Raised by the Commissioner:The appellant contended that the impugned order was beyond the scope of the show cause notice and that the Commissioner confirmed the demand on a different ground. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had examined the issue afresh as per the Tribunal's directions and that the appellant failed to establish their eligibility for the exemption.4. Applicability of the Extended Period for Raising the Demand:The appellant argued that the show cause notice was time-barred due to no suppression of facts. The Tribunal acknowledged the confusion regarding the definition of 'Tour Operator' over time and upheld the demand for the normal time period while setting aside the demand for the extended period.5. Imposition of Penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994:The Tribunal modified the penalty imposed under Section 78 in light of the confusion surrounding the definition of 'Tour Operator' and the appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.Conclusion:The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the demand for the normal time period and setting aside the demand for the extended period. The penalty was modified accordingly.
TaxTMI 