COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHAVNAGAR Vs. GUJARAT TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner confirming the Service Tax against the respondents, by treating the services rendered by them as falling within the ambit of Tour Operator Services as defined in Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994. Revenue has filed the present appeal.

(2.) WE have heard Shri Rajendra Nagar, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue and Shri R.V. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the respondents.

(3.) AS per facts on record, the respondents are operating the tours in a Omni Bus, registered with the Regional Transport Authority, Bhavanagar and are covered under the PCOP (Contract Carriage Permit) issued by the said authority. They were not paying the service tax on the ground that the tour is not being conducted in a tourist vehicle as defined in Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, inasmuch as their vehicle do not comply with the provisions of Rule 128 of Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, the vehicle used by them cannot be held to be a tourist vehicle. If that be so, the tours conducted by them by a contract carriage and not by a tourist vehicle, do not fall within the definition of Tour Operator, as held by the Honble Madras High Court in the case of Secretary, Federation of Bus Operators Association of Tamilnadu, Chennai v. UOI and Ors. reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 411 (Mad.) = 2001 (134) E.L.T. 618 (Madras).