2013 (12) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es imposing penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. The period in issue is 01.09.1997 to 30.11.2002. The appellant was a registered tour operator but failed to file any returns nor remitted any tax. A correspondence therefore ensued between the Revenue and the appellant culminating in a Show Cause Notice dated 20.12.2002. Eventually, the adjudication order was passed and aggrieved thereby the appellant preferred an appeal which was rejected by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur dated 28.10.2005. Aggrieved by the rejection of his appeal, the appellant had earlier preferred Service Tax Appeal No.51/2006 before this Tribunal. The appellant contended therein that it was not a tour operator since it was only actin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he extent of 60% provided by Exemption Notification No.15/2007/ST, dated 04.04.2007 for the period prior to 01.04.2000 as well. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant before us does not contest the correctness of the determination by the Commissioner (Appeals) and rightly so since on a true and fair construction of Notification No.15/2007/ST, dated 04.04.2007, the benefit of abatement of 60% is available only for the period 01.04.2000 to 04.02.2004; and not for any period prior to 01.04.2000. 3. On the aforesaid analysis, service tax appeal No.56942/2013 requires to be rejected and is accordingly dismissed. 4. Service Tax Appeal No.57297/2013 is filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 04.02.2013 whereby the appellants ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt herein was a tour operator holding tourist permits granted under provisions of the MV Act. Since Exemption Notification No.25/2004/ST, dated 10.09.2004 dis-applies the benefit of the exemption provided thereby to services provided by a tour operator engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by permits granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant herein is disentitled to benefits under the said Notification. 5. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 04.02.2013 rejecting the appellants claim for exemption on the basis of Notification No.25/2004-ST, is therefore vitiated by no error in the interpretation of the said Notification. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appella....