IDEAL TRAVELS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have taken up all these cases for final disposal in one go, considering the fact that the substantive issue is common to all the appellants and that all of them have raised alternative plea for the benefit of a notification issued by the Central Government. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit in all cases where stay applications have also been listed, we have heard both sides in each case. Synopses of submissions filed by the Advocates/Consultants/Authorised Representatives have also been considered.

(2.) THE challenge in all the appeals is directed against demands of service tax raised under the head Tour Operators Service covered by Section 65(105)(n) of the Finance Act, 1994. The impugned demands are for various periods from April, 2000. In each case, the penalties imposed on the assessee under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act and the demand of interest on service tax under Section 75 of the Act are also under challenge.

(3.) THE appellants were engaged in the business of plying buses on intra -State (Karnataka) or inter -State routes under Contract Carriage Permits or Tourist Permits during the material period without obtaining service tax registration and without payment of Service tax. The relevant show -cause notices issued by the Department, some of them invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, alleged that the appellants were providing taxable service as Tour Operators and hence liable to pay service tax for the respective periods. Where the demand of service tax was for a period beyond the normal period of limitation, the show -cause notice invoked the extended period of limitation on the alleged ground of suppression of facts by the noticee with intent to evade tax. All the show -cause notices proposed to levy interest on tax and also to impose penalties on the noticees. All the demands/proposals were contested by the parties who contended that only those engaged in the business of operating tours in tourist vehicles covered by permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 could be termed Tour Operators. All of them claimed that they were not operating tours in this sense and hence not liable to pay service tax under the head Tour Operators Service. The adjudicating authorities rejected this contention and confirmed the demands of service tax and Education Cess, with interest thereon, against the assessees. Penalties were also imposed on the parties. Where the orders in adjudication of the show -cause notices were passed by the jurisdictional Commissioners, the aggrieved parties are in appeal to the Tribunal. Where the Orders -in -Original were passed by officers below Commissioners rank, the assessees went in appeal to the jurisdictional appellate Commissioners. Where the appellate Commissioners decision was wholly or partly adverse to the assessees, the latter are in appeal to the Tribunal. In one case, the Commissioner (Appeals) demanded service tax from the assessee (M/s. Ideal Travels) only on the amount collected by them from the passengers of vehicles which were used to conduct tours under tourist permits and this part of the Order -in -Appeal is under challenge in the assessees appeal No. S.T./844/2010. The demand of service tax on collections from passengers of the vehicles covered by contract carriage permits was set aside by the appellate authority and this part of the Order -in -Appeal has been challenged by the Department in appeal No. S.T./985/2010.