Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... vs M/S. Rajan Travels

(Arising out of OIA-COMMR-A-/253/VDR-I/2006 dated 29.12.2006, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara)

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

M/s. Rajan Travels : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : None For Respondent (s) : Shri J. Nair, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 28.07.2015

ORDER No. A/11136 / 2015 Dated 28.07.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. None appears on behalf of the Respondent. There is no application for adjournment. Hence, we proceed to take up the appeal for disposal.

3. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative and on perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 15,33,915/- alongwith interest and imposed penalties for the period from April 2000 to June 2004, for the services provided under the category of Tour Operator, under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the adjudication order to the extent of three vehicles would not fall within the meaning and scope of Tourist Vehicles, under Section 65 (114) of the Act, 1994. Therefore, the services provided by the Respondent to M/s. JCT Electronics in the subject contracts by utilising the said three vehicles, would not fall within the meaning of Tour Operator. The demand of service tax in remaining vehicles, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the fact position in respect of the said vehicles and to pass order.

4. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the Contract Carriage Permit observed that the said three vehicles were permitted as contract carriage under Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and are not covered under the definition of Tourist Vehicles, within the meaning of Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read with Rule 82 to 85 and 128 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988. In view of that, Commissioner (Appeals) held that demand of service tax in respect of said three vehicles would not sustain. The Tribunal, on the identical issue in the case of CCE, Vadodara-II vs. Gandhi Travels  2007 (6) STR 430 (Tri. Ahmd.) dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. In that case, the vehicles owned by the Respondent held as not covered under Tourist Vehicles as per certificate from the transport authority produced before the Commissioner (Appeals). It has been observed that the Tourist Vehicles has to be read in the line and provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules thereunder.

5. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL

2