AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 811
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rat and M/s L& T, Hazira, etc by leasing buses/vehicles for transportation of their employees as per the written contract/agreement. On enquiry, the department found that the appellant was not paying any service tax on such services which as per the department fall under "Tour operator services" as defined under Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994. During enquiry, the appellant stated that they do not fall under service tax net for the above services of Tour operator. They however provided the data on the basis of which the department worked out service tax liability on them from 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2006 and issued a show cause notice dated 10.10.2007 demanding service tax of Rs. 21,46,547/- alongwith interest for the above period besi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rist vehicle not conforming to the specifications of contract carriage as per Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, cannot fall under the category of "Tourist Vehicle" as per Section 65(114) of the Finance Act, 1994. c) The decision in the case of M/s Sri Pandyan Travels (supra) as relied upon by the learned appellate authority was in respect of contact carriage operator whereas issue in their case is whether the buses given by them on lease could be treated as tourist vehicles under Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 when these buses do not fulfil the specifications and prescriptions contained in Rule 128 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. They rely on the following case laws in their supports:- • ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a contract carriage permit and their vehicles did not conform to the specification of tourist vehicle as given under Rule 128 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988. He placed reliance on the decision of Cestat Ahmedabad in the case of CCE Versus Bharat Travels-2010 (7) TMI 471-CESTAT Ahmedabad which has also been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide decision reported at 2011 (4) TMI 1317-SC having identical facts as in the case of the appellant. In the light of these submissions, he prayed for allowing their appeals with consequential relief. 4. Learned AR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and cited the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Allahabad Vs. Alok Prakash -2016 (41) STR 477 (Tribunal- Delhi) (also upheld by Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....88 or the rules made thereunder." (b) As per Section 65 (113), "Tour" means:- "a journey from one pale to another irrespective of the distance between such places." (c) As per Section 65 (114) of the Finance Act, 1994 "Tourist Vehicle" means:- "Tourist vehicle means a contract carriage constructed or adapted and equipped or maintained in accordance with such specifications as may be prescribed in this behalf." 5.2 As can be seen from above, the inclusive definition of Tour Operator covers a person engaged in the business of operating tour in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or the rules made thereunder. Further, as Section 2(43) of the Central Motor Vehicle Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s nor given any findings on type of permits granted to them by the state authorities for operating buses which is must to fasten Tax liability on the activity of providing vehicles by the Appellant on contract basis for transporting employees of their clients to and from their residence to the factory premisses, under "Tour Operator Service". Thus, the order(s) passed by the lower authorities are non-speaking and therefore, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority to give elaborate findings on the following aspects:- a) How the service of providing buses/Vehicles to their clients is covered within the definition of tourist vehicle as defined under Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988? b) Ty....