2008 (9) TMI 227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. Party's Name OIO/OIA Service Tax demanded Period   ST/St/96/2008 in ST/161/2008 M/s. Sri An- anthapadma- nabha Motors OIO No. 4/2008 dt. 26-2-2008 Rs. 74,85,578/-   April 2000 Jan.-2007 ST/St/98/2008 in ST/165/2008 M/s. Nish- mitha Motors   OIO No.1/2003 dt. 28-1-2008 Rs. 79,97,765/-   April 2000- Jan. 2007 St/St/35/2008 in ST/63/2008 M/s. Ideal Travels OIO No.16/2007 dt. 3011-2007 Rs. 65,82,410/-   April 2000 March 2006 ST/St/156/2008 in ST/249/2008 M/s. Sri Durgamba Transport Owners and Tourist Bus Operators OIO No.3/2003 dt. 21-2-2008 Rs. 82,67,317/- April 2000- March 2007 ST/St/129/2008 in ST/215/2008 M/s.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se circumstances, the said Notification under 11C has been issued. The very fact that the Government has to issue a Notification under 11C is sufficient reason to show that invocation of longer period is not sustainable. Reliance was placed on the decision of M/s. Mangal wardhini Travels v. CCE, Bhopal - 2009 (13) S.T.R. 51 (Tri.-Del.) = 2008-TIOL-1532-CESTAT-Del. In other words, during the relevant period, there were divergent views and there was a bona fide belief that the appellants were not liable to pay Service Tax on the activity of contract carriages in the category of tour operator services. 3.1 Further, it was stated that the definition of Tour Operators' was amended by the Finance Act, 2008 to include all types of vehicles used....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e pre-deposited. 4. The learned Joint CDR Mrs. Joy Kumari Chander and Mrs. Sudha Koka, learned SDR stated that the learned advocate Shri K. S. Ravi Shankar did not place the facts correctly while stating that the show cause notices cover a period of seven years. She brought to our attention that the first show cause notice invoked the longer period and subsequent show cause notices were issued within the normal period, therefore, it is not correct to state that the show cause notices were issued spanning a period of seven years. It was contended that just because Notification under 11C of the Central Excise Act was issued, it cannot be said that the appellants have a strong case on merits. She informed the Bench that the appellants were ....