Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Goa Tourism Development Corporation

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

APPEAL No.ST/125/09

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.GOA/MP/83/2008-09 dated 03/03/2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Goa)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

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

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================

Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa Appellant

Vs. Goa Tourism Development Corporation Respondent

Appearance:

Shri.B.K.Iyer, Supdt. (AR) for appellant Shri.C.S.Biradar, Advocate, for respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 29/01/2015 Date of Decision : 29/01/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.GOA/MP/83/2008-09 dated 03/03/2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Goa.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. The issue involved in this case is whether the activity undertaken by the appellant would amount to service tax liability under Section 65 (113) of the Finance Act, 1994, which is regarding cruise undertaken by the respondents boats.

4. We find that an identical issue came up before this Bench in the case of CCE Goa Vs. Swastik Cruises by a final order No.A/1737/13/CSTB/C-I dated 04/09/2013; held in favour of the assessee respondent therein, by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The said view was followed by the Bench in the case of CCE, Goa Vs. Priyadarshini River Cruises and by order No.A/2031/13/CSTB/C-I dated 19/09/2013 again holding in favour of assessee. We find that in the impugned order that the first appellate authority has relied upon her own order-in-appeal, in the case of Priyadarshini River Cruises and held in favour of the respondent. Since the order of the first appellate authority in the case of Priyadarshini River Cruises has been held in favour of the respondent by this Bench, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order, which we find is correct and legal. Appeal is rejected.

(Dictated in Court)

(P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

pj

1 3