PRAKASH AND POONAM TOURS AND TRAVELS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI O.P. Agarwal, C.A. submits that the facts of the case of the Appellant has been noticed in para -3 of the impugned order exhibiting that the Appellant carries employees of Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. through its buses from Udaipur to Jhamarkotra, Jhamarkotra to Kharwachanda and vice versa. Using of buses for transport of employees is not tourist operation. What is tourist operation is defined under Section 65(52) of the Finance Act 1994. Such operation is in respect of engagement in the business of providing tours and travels in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) IT submits that Appellant's vehicles were not at all tourist vehicles and no permit for such purpose was granted. The Authorities held that when there was a contract carriage for transportation of employees, it was a tour operator. Also the Authorities misconceived the law and without properly reading the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Secy. Federn. Of Bus -Operators Assn. of T.N. v. Union of India reported in 2006 (2) STR 411 (Tri. - Mad.), brought the Appellant to the purview of Service Tax under the category of 'tour operator'.

(3.) LD . DR Shri Vijay Kumar brings to our notice that there were carriage contract made by the Appellant. Therefore the Appellant shall be liable to Service Tax following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sri Pandyan Travels v. CCE reported in : 2004 (163) ELT 409. Accordingly both the Authorities were correct to hold against the Appellant.