<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (6) TMI 774 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329065</link>
    <description>Tour operator service under the Finance Act, 1994 required proof that the assessee operated tours in the statutory sense in a tourist vehicle, and after the 2008 amendment in a qualifying contract carriage other than a stage carriage. Mere operation of buses on contract carriage permits, without evidence that the vehicles met the Rule 128 tourist vehicle specifications or that the activity involved tour operation rather than passenger transport on fixed fares, was insufficient. On that basis, the service tax, interest and penalty demand was unsustainable, and the alternative exemption plea under Notification No. 20/2009-ST did not require separate adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 774 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329065</link>
      <description>Tour operator service under the Finance Act, 1994 required proof that the assessee operated tours in the statutory sense in a tourist vehicle, and after the 2008 amendment in a qualifying contract carriage other than a stage carriage. Mere operation of buses on contract carriage permits, without evidence that the vehicles met the Rule 128 tourist vehicle specifications or that the activity involved tour operation rather than passenger transport on fixed fares, was insufficient. On that basis, the service tax, interest and penalty demand was unsustainable, and the alternative exemption plea under Notification No. 20/2009-ST did not require separate adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>