TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, JC (AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: Bench The facts of the case are that appellants were operating buses for conducting tours and also operating daily day trips (point to point) to Tirupati and Pondicherry. Department took the view that the vehicles operated by the appellants are covered by permits issued b the Transport authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act and the point to point serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 48,02,834/- was confirmed and demanded along with interest liability thereon. Proposed demand of Rs. 4,73,693/- in the third SCN dt. 12.04.2007 was confirmed. Penalties were also imposed under various provisions of law. Hence these appeals. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of appellant, Ld. Consultant Shri V. Vijay Anand made oral submissions which can be broadly summar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.15/2007 dt. 12.04.2007), they accept the tax liability, however they seek cum tax benefit since they have not collected any service tax from their customers. (iii) Ld. consultant also submits that there is no case for imposition of penalties since omission on their part was due to bonafide belief that the activities performed by them would not come under the service tax net. 3. On the other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey had sent a communication on 10.01.2003 to the Range Superintendent. However, in our view, that letter will not help their case since the dispute does not start on that date or even proximate to it but almost three years earlier. This letter therefore cannot then be a good argument for setting aside the demand for the period beyond normal period of limitation. 6. In the event, we hold that the....