NEERAJ CONSTRUCTION Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE heard both sides for a while on the stay petition. Considering the small amount involved and considering the nature of issue we deem it appropriate to waive pre -deposit and proceed to dispose of the appeal finally.

(2.) THE appellant is a small businessman in Kota and gave on rent one Tata Sumo and one Maruti Esteem to M/s. Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited. The capacity of Maruti Esteem is less than six and the capacity of Tata Sumo is more than six and less than 12 and, therefore, they qualify as motor cab and maxi cab respectively. The original authority held that they are rendering the service of "Rent -a -cab Scheme Operator" and accordingly confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 1,31,915/ - relating to the period from 1 -1 -2002 to 31 -3 -2005 and imposed penalties under different sections of the Finance Act, 1994.

(3.) LEARNED DR submits that only the definition of cab under the Motor Vehicles Act is relevant and compliance to other formalities under Motor Vehicles Act are not pre -requisite for levying service tax. The vehicles used by them deserves to be called as motor cab and maxi -cab and they are renting the same as cab only to the corporate. The charges collected have been rightly taxed as rent -a -cab service.