<?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>2007 (1) TMI 592 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185393</link>
    <description>Service tax under the Tour Operator category applied only where the assessee operated tours in a tourist vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The article notes that the 2004 amendment expanded the scope only for package tour operators, not for all tour operators. On the stated facts, the vehicle was treated as a private service vehicle rather than a tourist vehicle, and the registration and permit records supported that classification. The departmental view that the amended definition removed the tourist vehicle requirement for all operators was rejected, so the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:09:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 592 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185393</link>
      <description>Service tax under the Tour Operator category applied only where the assessee operated tours in a tourist vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The article notes that the 2004 amendment expanded the scope only for package tour operators, not for all tour operators. On the stated facts, the vehicle was treated as a private service vehicle rather than a tourist vehicle, and the registration and permit records supported that classification. The departmental view that the amended definition removed the tourist vehicle requirement for all operators was rejected, so the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185393</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>