2006 (4) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be imposed with penalty for not having been registered in the category of Tour Operator. This show cause notice was dropped by the Deputy Commissioner by Order-in-Original No. 50/03, dated 9-4-2003. The Commissioner did not initiate action for review till 1-4-2005, on this day Show Cause Notice No. 1/05, (ST) was issued calling upon the appellants to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed for not having registered themselves as Tourist Operator. Reference to the earlier show cause notice dated 30-5-2002 has also been made. In both the show cause notices, the period of demand and the service tax has not been quantified. 2. The appellants took the stand that the proceeding initiated is not as per law and inasmuch as the service tax....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as solely on the basis of the appellant having registered as a contract vehicle. 3. The learned Counsel attacks the order on the ground their vehicle does not satisfy the specifications of a tourist vehicle in terms of the said Section and Rule. He produces the copy of the RC book and refers to the provisions of Rule 128 to shows that the specifications, dimensions and seating capacity and other structures, door, etc., are not in terms of the specifications laid down in Rule 128 of the Motor Vehicle Rules. He further submits that in terms of the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Bayer Diagnostics India Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara reported in 2005 (182) E.L.T. 487, the demands are not sustainable if the same has not been raised in the show ....