2025 (4) TMI 1340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....It is the case of the Revenue that the District Forest Officer and Deputy Director, Anamalai Tiger Reserve (assesse-appellant), Govt of Tamil Nadu are collecting fees, charges, etc. for permitting persons, arranging Jungle Safari/sightseeing during day time as well as during night time in the tourist destinations like top slip, monkey, falls, Chinnakallur, etc. in vehicles, along with Guide services on payment of fixed charges which, according to them, was covered under 'Tour Operator Services' which is taxable under Section 65 (105)(n) of the Finance Act, 1994. Similarly, it was alleged that the service provider had made facilities at various places like Top slip, Anamali, etc. within their jurisdiction to accommodate tourists who were per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ADC dated 28.02.2014 accepted the claims of the appellant/assessee and accordingly, dropped the proceedings initiated vide Show Cause Notice dated 18.04.2012. In the said Order-in-Original, the Original Authority has referred to the Wild life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2006 [No. 39 of 2006] ['WPA' in short]; there is also a specific finding that the amounts collected towards eco-tourism were credited to the Anamalai Tiger Conservation Foundation Fund and utilised only for the purpose of maintenance and conservation of Tiger and its habitats and also utilised to maintain sustainable livelihood of the tribals in the Anamalai Tiger Reserve as per Rule 38Q of the WPA -- Supra. It has also been held that the assessee is discharging only their i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n interpretation of law was involved. Accordingly, the First Appellate Authority set aside the penalty proposed but not levied in the Order-in-Original. 6. It is against this demand that the present Appeal has been filed by the appellant before us. Both the learned representatives would admit that the Revenue has not filed any appeal against any part of the Order-in-Appeal. 7. Heard Shri Satish Chandrasekaran, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Ld. Deputy Commissioner for the Respondent. 8. The only issue is, "whether the activity undertaken by the Appellant as forthcoming from the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal would amount rendering of 'Tour Operators Service' and 'Short-term accommodation service'? ....