TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 592
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Malanpur, Distt. Bhind to provide details of payment made to the Appellants. M/s. Vikram Woolens vide letter dated 11-10-2005 submitted a copy of contract and details of payment made during the period September 04 to September 05 amounting to Rs. 13,52,464/-. Accordingly, the Appellants were directed by the Superintendent, Central Excise Range-I Gwalior vide letter dated 31-10-2005 to obtain the registration certificate and to pay the service tax but Appellants neither obtained the registration certificate nor paid service tax for the period September '04 to September '05. (b) Therefore, a Show Cause Notice dated 10-4-2006 was issued for recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,37,951/- (S.Tax Rs. 1,35,246/- + Edu. Cess Rs. 2,705/-) under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1944 (Finance Act). Penalty under Sections 77 & 78 was also proposed for contravention of Sections 68, 69 & 70 of the Act ibid. (c) Vide the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,37,951/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act along with interest. He also imposed an equal amount ( i.e. Rs. 1,37,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in respect of Vehicle No. M.P. 07 F. 0538 and as a holder of permit he had not entered into contract with M/s. Vikram Woolens, Malanpur. Further Bus No. M.P. 07 F 0538 is not covered by a transport permit of "Contract carriage" as per Rule 73(b) in form M.P. V.R- 49 (CCP) of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules but under Rule 73 (c) as a private service vehicle in form M.P.V.R-52 (PSVP). Therefore, Vehicle No. MP 07 F 0538 is not a contract vehicle and as such not covered under the definition of "Tourist Vehicle". (iv) The Appellants in support of their contention supra have relied on Para 13 to Para 18 of Hon'ble Madras High Court judgment in the case of Secretary Federation of Bus-operators Association of Tamilnadu v. UOI reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 411 (Mad.) = 2001 (134) E.L.T. 618 (Mad). In the ratio of this decision of the Madras High Court Vehicle No. M.P. 07 F. 0538 clearly remains out of the definition of "Tourist Vehicle". When the vehicle could not be treated as "Tourist Vehicle", there is no question of Appellants being termed as "Tour Operator" within the meaning of Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994. (v) M/s. Vikram W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vehicle'. (iii) As per Section 2(43) of MV Act 1988 'Tourist Vehicle' should be a contract vehicle. Definition of contract vehicle is given in Section 2(7) of the Motor Vehicle Act. As per this definition 'contract vehicle' are those vehicle which carries passengers for hire or reward and then should be a contract by a person with the holder of permit in relation to such vehicle. Appellants are not the holder of the permit in this case and as holder of permit he has not entered into any contract with M/s. Vikram Woolens, Malanpur. As such it is not a contract vehicle. (iv) Madras High Court in the case reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 411 (Mad.) = 2001 (134) E.L.T. 618 (Mad) relied upon by the department, has held, vide Para 36 that if the vehicle owned by the appellant is not 'Tourist Vehicle' within the meaning of Section 2(43) of MV Act read with Rule 128 of the Rules framed thereunder then such Appellant would not be required to be registered under the Finance Act. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. The appeal is being taken up for final disposal after dispensing with deposit of duty and penalty. On a ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the definition of the term "Tour Operator" has been amended only with reference to the package Tour Operators where the scope of levy was extended by removing the limitation regarding transportation by tourist vehicles and that the existing levy on Tour Operators engaged in operating tours in tourist vehicle remains as such. In the present case, undisputedly, the Appellants are not engaged in offering any package tour and therefore, they would fall within the ambit "Tour Operators" only if the vehicle used is tourist vehicle. According to the Appellants, their vehicle is not tourist vehicle which is supported by the R.C Book submitted by them and therefore, they would not come within the purview of service tax under the category of Tour Operator. The case laws cited by the Appellants, namely the Bangalore Tribunal judgment in the case of Praseetha Suresh v. CCE Thiruvananthpuram, the Madras High Court's decision in the case of Secretary Federation of Bus-operators v. UOI (particularly, Paragraphs 20 and 36 of the order) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and therefore the demand of duty confirmed against the Appellants would be clearly not sustainable and therefor....