TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 688
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s.HPCL from the respective residences and to their place of work". The value of the work done in the three years for which the Show Cause Notice is issued is Rs. 1,24,16,433/- and the Service Tax proposed for demand is Rs. 6,20,822/- together with interest and imposition of penalties. 1.2 On adjudication vide order dated 14.02.2005 the original authority confirmed the proposals in the notice. In appeal vide order dated 16.01.2006, the first appellate authority upheld the original order. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant learned Counsel Ms. A.S. K. Sweta made the following submissions: 2.1 Undisputed facts in the present issue is that i) Appellant has been granted temporary permits ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore necessarily such vehicle must conform to the conditions prescribed under Rule 128 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules. 2.4 It is not the case of the department that their vehicles/buses conforms to the specifications prescribed under Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The basic allegation that all vehicles which got permit should comply with the conditions specified under Rule 185 (1)(a)(i) to 185 (1)(a)(xxi) of the AP Motor Vehicles rules and Rule VII of AP Motor Vehicles Act is not sufficient to get the activity of the appellant covered under Tour Operator Service hence the demand is not sustainable. In this connection she placed reliance on the following citations. i) SVR Tours and Travels Vs CCE & ST H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th Transport Vs CST, Mum 2016 (41) STR 660 (Tri-Mum) iii) Capricorn Transways Pvt Ltd CCE, Raigad 2015 (37) STR 1027 (Tri- Mum) 5. It is further seen that the Madras High Court judgment relied upon by Revenue has in fact been referred to by the Tribunal in all the above judgments. The relevant portion in the case of L.N. Gupta Transport Co. Cited supra is extracted as under; " Firstly, we find that neither the adjudicating authority nor the commissioner (Appeals) had brought out the clear distinction between the levy on tour operator service pre-2004. As regards the period pre-2004, the issue has been dealt with total in Tribunal's Order in the case of M/s. Jai Somnath Transportation and Ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es owned by the petitioners are not the "tourist vehicles" within the meanings of Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 128 of t he rules framed thereunder then, such petitioner would not be required to be registered under the finance Act, the learned Senior Counsel for the department very fairly accepted this position. However, he pointed out that it would be for the petitioners to raise their objections before the concerned authorities under the finance act and their objections would be decided upon. Therefore, the petitioners are permitted to raise the objections before the concerned authorities issuing the notices and the authorities will decide as to whether the petitioners' vehicles are the "tourist vehicles" as conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... means it will include air-rail-cab travel also. From the above clarification, the intent of the legislature was to expand the levy of service tax for planning/scheduling/organizing/arranging the package tours for all modes of travel. It was not intended to expand the scope to cases such as the present one. In the present case, the appellants provide/supply the contract carriage business (not tourist vehicles) to their customers on their demand only. Therefore, the activity of the appellant is not covered by the definition of 'Tour Operator' on 10-09-2004. We find from the records that the lower authorities have given no reasoning to state that the activity of the appellants post 10-09-2004 gets covered under the first ....