M/S. Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PII/AV/140 &141/2010 dated 18.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Pune-I)

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

============================================================

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?

=============================================================

M/s. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation : Appellant

VS

Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur : Respondent

Appearance

Shri Ahok B. Kulgod, Assistant Commissioner for Appellant

Shri P.B. Kadam, Advocate (A.R) for respondent

CORAM:

Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical) Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing : 6/10/2015 Date of pronouncement : 2/12/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : P.S. Pruthi

These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dt. 18.8.2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Pune-II.

2. The facts are that the appellants were engaged in providing buses for hire to various agencies/persons on contract basis. The adjudicating authority held that service tax is payable on the services provided under the category of Rent-a-Cab service as defined under Section 65(20) of the Finance Act. Two demands of Rs.6,29,689/- and Rs.20,10,388/- both for the periods 7th June to March 2009 in respect of Sindhudurg Division and Ratnagiri Division respectively were confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. Penalties were imposed under Sections 77 & 78 of the Finance Act. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the services are covered under the category of Tour Operator service as defined under Section 65(115) as the vehicles were engaged in undertaking tours and would fall within the ambit of services of a tour operator. The Commissioner (Appeals) then goes on to say that the services have been performed in respect of educational trips of schools which are excluded from the purview of the tour operator service. Revenue has filed (Appeals) against this order of Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not explained how the services are covered under the tour operator service.

3. We have carefully considered the facts and submissions made by both sides. At the outset, we find that the grounds of appeal have totally ignored the main finding of the Commissioner that tour operator service and Rent-a-Cab service are exempted if the journeys are organized or arranged for use by an educational body. For convenience, the definition of Tour Operator service and Rent-a-Cab are reproduced below:

(20) "cab" means-

(i) a motorcab, or

(ii) a maxicab, or (iii) any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than twelve passengers, excluding the driver, for hire or reward:

Provided that the maxicab referred to in sub-clause (ii) or motor vehicle referred to in subclause (iii) which is rented for use by an educational body imparting skill or knowledge or lessons on any subject or field, other than a commercial training or coaching centre, shall not be included within the meaning of cab;

(115)tour? operator means any person engaged in the business of planning, scheduling, organising or arranging tours (which may include arrangements for accommodation, sightseeing or other similar services) by any mode of transport, and includes any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) or the rules made thereunder;

Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, the expression tour does not include a journey organised or arranged for use by an educational body, other than a commercial training or coaching centre, imparting skill or knowledge or lessons on any subject or field;]

We find that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellants have submitted details wherein it is very clear that the vehicles were hired by schools and colleges for trips. This finding has not been controverted by Revenue. Therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

The impugned order is upheld and Revenues appeals are dismissed.

(Pronounced in court on 2/12/2015)

(Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial)

(P.S.Pruthi) Member (Technical)

SM.

3

Appeal No. ST/630,631/2010-Mum