Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Do vs Gun-Excus-000-App-002-16-17,Dt. ... on 24 October, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Bench: Division Bench Court I Appeal No. Appellant Respondent
Impugned Order (OIA) No. & Date ST/01886/2012 APSRTC-Kadapa CCCE&ST, Tirupati 30/2012(T(ST), Dt. 23.04.2012 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/25921/2013 APSRTC-Kadapa .do.
87/2012(T)ST, dated 23.11.2012 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur
ST/22292/2015
APSRTC-Bhimavaram
.do. Guntur
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-097-15-16, dt. 20.08.2015 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30095/2016 APSRTC-Tanuku CCE C&ST, Guntur GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-0127-15-16, dated 27.11.2015 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30096/2016 APSRTC-Narasapuram .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-0130-15-16, dt. 27.11.2015 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30097/2016 APSRTC-Tadepalligudem .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-0132-15-16, dt. 27.11.2015 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30098/2016 APSRTC-Eluru .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-0134-15-16, dt. 27.11.2015 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30120/2016 APSRTC-Bhimavaram .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-0133-15-16,dated 27.11.2015 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30121/2016 APSRTC-Jangareddy .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-0131-15-16, dt. 27.11.2015 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30122/2016 APSRTC-Narasapuram .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-0128-15-16, dt. 27.11.2015 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30123/2016 APSRTC-Tanuku .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-0100-16-17, dt. 27.10.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30442/2016 APSRTC-Jangareddy .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-004-16-17, dt. 27.04.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30443/2016 APSRTC-Tanuku .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-006-16-17,dt. 27.04.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30444/2016 APSRTC-Tadepalligudem .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-002-16-17,dt. 27.04.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30445/2016 APSRTC-Bhimavaram .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-001-16-17,dt. 27.04.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30483/2016 APSRTC-Eluru .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-003-16-17,dt. 27.04.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30564/2016 APSRTC-Narasapuram .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-005-16-17,dt. 27.04.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30123/2017 APSRTC-Narasapuram .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-100-16-17,dt. 27.10.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30124/2017 APSRTC-Tadepalligudem .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-101-16-17,dt. 27.10.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30125/2017 APSRTC-Bhimavaram .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-102-16-17,dt. 27.10.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30126/2017 APSRTC-Jangareddy .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-103-16-17,dt. 27.10.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30127/2017 APSRTC-Eluru .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-104-16-17,dt. 27.10.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30128/2017 APSRTC-Narasapuram .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-105-16-17,dt. 27.10.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30129/2017 APSRTC-Tanuku .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-105-16-17,dt. 27.10.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30130/2017 APSRTC-Narasapuram .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-107-16-17,dt. 27.10.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur ST/30354/2017 APSRTC-Bhimavaram .do.
GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-101-16-17,dt. 27.10.2016 issued by CCCE&ST, Guntur Appearance Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate for the Appellant.
Sh. B. Raja Ambedkar, Superintendent/Shri Amar Prakash, Asst. Commissionr/(ARs) for the Respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Honble Mr. MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 08.09.2017 Date of Decision: ....
FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: Bench]
1. All these 26 appeals since involving identical issue, they are taken up together for common disposal. The common facts in all these appeals are that Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), the appellants herein, are engaged in operation of buses in the State of Andhra Pradesh for travelling public. They were also providing buses for marriage functions, pilgrimage places etc. to private persons on commercial consideration. Department viewed the said services as taxable under the category Rent-a-Cab services. Show cause notices were issued to all these appellants demanding differential service tax liabilities of various periods alongwith interest thereon and also proposing imposition of penalties under various provisions of law.
Adjudicating authority confirmed the demands of service tax alongwith interest and penalties. In appeal, lower appellate authority vide order in appeals (OIA impugned orders), upheld orders of adjudicating authority. Hence these appeals.
2. Details of appeal numbers, period involved, tax demanded etc. as submitted by Ld. Advocate is reproduced below for ready reference S.No. Appeal No. Appellant Period involved Service Tax demanded
1. ST/01886/2012 APSRTC-Kadapa 01.6.2007- 30.09.2009 2,715,551.00
2. ST/25921/2013 APSRTC-Kadapa 01.10.2009-30.11.2010 2,259,456.00
3. ST/22292/2015 APSRTC-Bhimavaram 01.06.2007-31.12.2011 376,172.00
4. ST/30095/2016 APSRTC-Tanuku 01.6.2007 - 31.12.2011 234,089.00
5. ST/30096/2016 APSRTC-Narasapuram Jan.2012-Mar. 2013 86,989.00
6. ST/30097/2016 APSRTC-Tadepalligudem Jan. 2012-June 2012 39,172.00
7. ST/30098/2016 APSRTC-Eluru .do.
65,137.00
8. ST/30120/2016 APSRTC-Bhimavaram 01.01.2012-30.09.2012 56,590.00
9. ST/30121/2016 APSRTC-Jangareddy 01.01.2012-30.06.2012 72,894.00
10. ST/30122/2016 APSRTC-Narasapuram 01.06.2007-31.12.2011 274,178.00
11. ST/30123/2016 APSRTC-Tanuku 01.01.2012-30.03.2013 96,258.00
12. ST/30442/2016 APSRTC-Jangareddygudem 01.07.2012-31.03.2014 146,122.00
13. ST/30443/2016 APSRTC-Tanuku 01.04.2013-30.09.2014 126,486.00
14. ST/30444/2016 APSRTC-Tadepalligudem 01.07.2012-30.03.2014 130,947.00
15. ST/30445/2016 APSRTC-Bhimavaram 10/2012 03/2014 291,665.00
16. ST/30483/2016 APSRTC-Eluru July 2012 March 2013 202,272.00
17. ST/30564/2016 APSRTC-Narasapuram 04/2013 03/2014 83,666.00
18. ST/30123/2017 APSRTC-Narasapuram 04/2014 09/2014 80,509.00
19. ST/30124/2017 APSRTC-Tadepalligudem 01.04.2014-31.03.2015 116,205.00
20. ST/30125/2017 APSRTC-Bhimavaram 01.04.2014-31.03.2015 248,412.00
21. ST/30126/2017 APSRTC-Jangareddy 01.04.2014-31.03.2015 152,518.00
22. ST/30127/2017 APSRTC-Eluru 14.10.2014-31.03.2015 257,922.00
23. ST/30128/2017 APSRTC-Narasapuram 01.10.2014-31.03.2015 66,143.00
24. ST/30129/2017 APSRTC-Tanuku 01.10.2014-30.09.2015 98,517.00
25. ST/30130/2017 APSRTC-Narasapuram 01.04.2015-30.09.2015 31,670.00
26. ST/30354/2017 APSRTC-Bhimavaram 01.04.2015-30.09.2015 51,538.00
3. On 08.09.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, the appellants represented by Ld. Advocate Shri G. Natarajan, made oral and written submissions, which can be broadly summarised as under:
(a) In the instant case, the appellant, a State Transport Undertaking is operating buses, which are Stage Carriage vehicles which are mainly used for passenger transportation. Their spare buses as well as normal buses, which are stage carriages are also used by them for giving on hire to various customers, in connection with marriage functions, pilgrimages etc. The demand of service tax in respect of the 25 Appeals, as per the list attached, is on the above activity, under the category of rent a cab operator service upto 30.06.2012 and as service as defined under section 65 B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994, post introduction of negative list based levy of service tax.
(b) It has been held that the levy of service tax under rent a cab would be attracted, only when the possession and control of the vehicle is also given away to the person to whom the vehicle is given. In the instant case, the possession and control of the vehicles always remain with APSRTC and hence the demand of service tax under rent a cab operator service is not sustainable.
(c) From 01.07.2012, a negative list based service tax levy was imposed and the term service has been defined in Section 65 B (44) of the Act and all services, other than those mentioned in the negative list or exempted from payment of service tax are liable to levy of service tax.
(d) Section 66 D of the Act, containing the negative list covers the following, during the relevant period.
Service of transportation of passengers, with or without accompanied belongings by-
(i) A stage carriage;
(ii) Railways in a class other than-
(A) First class; or (B) An airconditioned coach;
(iii) Metro, monorail or tramway;
(iv) Inland waterways;
(v) Public transport, other than predominantly for tourism purpose, in a vessel between places located in India and
(vi) Metered cabs, radio taxis or auto rickshaws.
(e) Further, the following exemption has been provided for under notification 25/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012.
Transport of passengers, with or without accompanies belongings by-
(i) Air, embarking from or terminating in an airport located in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim or Tripura or at Bagdogra located in West Bengal.
(ii) A contract carriage for the transportation of passengers, excluding tourism, conducted tour, charter or hire; or
(iii) Ropeway, cable car or aerial tramway.
(f) In the instant case, all the buses operated by APSRTC are stage carriage vehicles and there is no dispute on this fact. These stage carriage vehicles are used for purposes like marriage functions, pilgrimage, by obtaining a special permit under section 88 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, according to which such special permit can be granted to stage carriage vehicles as well as contract carriage vehicles. From the negative list entry, all transportation of passengers, by stage carriage are not liable to levy of service tax. A perusal of the exemption provided for under S.No. 23 of Notification 25/1012 it may be observed that while giving exemption to non air-conditioned contract carriage vehicles, it has been specifically provide that such exemption would not apply for tourism, conducted tour, charter or hire and no such exclusion has been provided for under Section 66 D (o) of the Act for stage carriages. So, when stage carriage vehicles are used for transportation of passengers, even for purposes of tourism, conducted tour, charter or hire, there cannot be a demand of service tax.
4. The definition of rent a cab operator was considered by Honble High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise vs. Sachin Malhotra [2015(37)S.T.R 684 (Uttarakhand)] and the difference between renting and hiring was analysed. It was held for the period after 01.07.2012.
5. On the other hand, Department A.R supported the impugned orders. It was submitted that appeals have been filed under the category of rent-a-cab services relying upon the following case laws:
(a) M/s S.K. Kareemun Vs. Commissioner of CEX, CUS & S. Tax, Hyderabad-III (2016(42)STR 988(Tri-Bang); Shri Gayatri Turist Bus Services Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara (2013 (29) STR 499 (Tri.-Ahmd.)
(b) M/s Vishal Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore (2013(31)STR 319(Tri.-Bang)
(c) M/s Anil Engineering Vs. Commissioner of CE, Jaipur (2014(34)STR 44 (Tri.-Del);
(d) M/s Carzonrent (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I (2017(50)STR 172 (Tri.-Del.);
(e) M/s Lawrence Travels vs.CCE, Nashik (2013(32)STR 715 (Tri.-Mumbai).
(f) M/s Neeraj Constructions vs. CCE, Jaipur (2009(13)STR 145 (Tri.-Del.).
6. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts of the case. Rent-a-cab service was brought into Service Tax net w.e.f. 16.09.1997. Section 65 (41) (r) defining the service as taxable service as any service provided to any person by renting cab operator in relation to renting of a cab. Erstwhile vide section 65(32), rent-a-cab operator was defined as person who is the holder of a licence under Rent-a-Cab scheme, 1989, framed by Central Government under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These provisions were amended a number of times. As it stood as substituted by Finance Act, 2003 and further amended by Finance Act, 2007, aforesaid definitions had evolved as follows:
As substituted by the Finance Act, 2003:
Section 65(105) (o) Taxable service means any service provided to any person by a rent-a-cab scheme operator in relation to the renting of a cab;
Section 65(91) rent-a-cab scheme operator means any person engaged in the business of renting of cabs; Section 65(20) cab means a motorcab or maxicab;
Section 65(70) maxicab has the meaning assigned to it in clause (22) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 or 1988); Section 65(71) motorcab has the meaning assigned to it in clause (25) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 or 1988). Section 65(20) cab means-
(.i) a motor cab, 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 sub-clause (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.
7. Thus, after amendment of 2007, the term cab would thenceforth cover buses also. It is not disputed that the appellants have been providing buses for marriage functions, pilgrimages to private persons/ marriage parties and collecting special hire charges.
The issue that come up for appellate decision is for the impugned periods-
(a) Whether the impugned periods upto 31.07.2012 (after which date negative list based service tax levy was imposed), the hire charges collected by appellants for the impugned activities would attract levy of service tax under rent-a-cab service.
(b) Whether the same activities would be liable to discharge of service tax liability from 01.07.2012.
8. From 01.07.2012, the entire scheme of service specifically levy was done away with. All services other than those mentioned in the negative list are exempted from payment of service tax, were made liable to levy service tax from that date. The term service was defined in Section 65 B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994. The leviability of service tax under rent-a-cab service was exempted by Honble High Court of Uttarakhand in the landmark decision of CCE vs. Sachin Malhotra (supra). The Honble High Court in their judgment unequivocally held that unless controlling of vehicle is made over to hirer and he is given possession for howsoever short period to deal with the vehicle, there would be no renting. The relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced as under:
What is sought to be taxed under the provisions, which we have adverted to in this judgment, is service, which is rendered in relation to renting of cabs. Under Section 65(91) of the Service Tax Act, rent-a-cab scheme operator has been defined as a person, who is engaged in the renting of cabs. The words in relation to, undoubtedly, do have the effect of expanding the scope of taxation. With this proposition, we can have no quarrel. But, this cannot detract from our enquiring into as to what is the transaction, which is actually brought to tax. We are constrained to pose this question and answer this question as what is sought to be taxed is the service in relation to the renting of cabs. So, the most important and crucial element, which we must bear in mind, is, whether there is a business of renting of cabs. Unless there is renting of cabs, there is no question of further enquiring as to the services, which may be rendered therein. In other words, any service, which may be rendered and which does not relate to renting of cabs, would be irrelevant for our consideration. When we consider the matter in the said light, we have no doubt in our minds that the Tribunal has, in this case, correctly propounded the principle that, unless the control of the vehicle is made over to the hirer and he is given possession for howsoever short a period, which the contract contemplates, to deal with the vehicle, no doubt subject to the other terms of the contract; there would be no renting. A perusal of Section 75 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would also fortify us in the view that we have taken. Section 75 reads as follows :
?Scheme for renting of motor cabs. - (1)?the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette, make a scheme for the purpose of regulating the business of renting of motor cabs or motor cycles to persons desiring to drive either by themselves or through drivers, motor cabs or motor cycles for their own use and for matters connected therewith. (2)?A scheme made under sub-section (1) may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely;-
(a) licensing of operators under the scheme including grant, renewal and revocation of such licences;
(b) form of application and form of licences and the particulars to be contained therein;
(c) fee to be paid with the application for such licences;
(d) the authorities to which the application shall be made;
(e) condition subject to which such licences may be granted, renewed or revoked;
(f) appeals against orders of refusal to grant or renew such licences and appeals against orders revoking such licences;
(g) conditions subject to which motorcabs may be rented;
(h) maintenance of records and inspection of such records;
(i) such other matters as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this section. In terms of Section 75, a scheme has been framed by the Government, which is called Rent-A-Cab Scheme, 1989. It contemplates the licensing of the operator; the making of an application for the licence; the grant of the licence; and the duration of the licence. We noticed, no doubt, that Clause 9 contemplates collection of hire charges. It also provides for the duties and responsibilities of the hirers of motor cabs in Clause 10, which we consider to be relevant, and we, therefore, extract the same as under : 10.?Duties and responsibilities of hirers of motor cabs. - (1)?It shall be the duty of every hirer, to keep the holder of the licence informed of his movements from time to time.
(2)?If an individual or company has hired the vehicles as a leader of the tourist party, it shall be the duty of such leader of the party to keep the holder of the licence informed of the movement of each vehicle, from time to time. (3)?If a hirer so desires, he may engage a person possessing a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle so hired during the period of the hire agreement. A perusal of Clause 10 would re-enforce us in the view that we are taking that, under the rent-a-cab scheme, the hirer is endowed with the freedom to take the vehicle, wherever he wishes, and he is only obliged to keep the holder of the licence informed of his movements from time to time. When a person chooses to hire a car, which is offered on the strength of a permit issued by the Motor Vehicles Department, then the owner of the vehicle, who may or may not be the driver, will offer his service while retaining the control and possession of the vehicle with himself. The customer is merely enabled to make use of the vehicle by travelling in the vehicle. In the case of a passenger, he is expected to pay the metered charges, which is usually collected on the basis of the number of kilometers travelled. These are all matters, which are regulated by the Government. Unlike the said scenario, in the case of a rent-a-cab scheme, as is clear from the very fundamental principle underlying the scheme, it is to give the hirer the freedom to use the vehicle as he pleases, which, undoubtedly, implies that he must have possession and control over the vehicle. This is the fundamental distinction between rent-a-cab and a pure case of hiring. No doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant may be correct in saying that, in the case of rent-a-cab also, there is hiring in the general sense. As we have already noted, the word hire is used even in the rent-a-cab scheme. But, what is of fundamental importance and constitutes the distinguishing feature between rent-a-cab and hiring is that, in the case of hiring, undoubtedly, the owner of the vehicle retains control and possession; he either drives the vehicle himself or employs somebody else to drive the vehicle; and the customer merely makes use of the vehicle by travelling in the vehicle on the basis of a contract that he will pay the requisite hire charges for the period he uses the vehicle. Unlike the same, in the case of rent-a-cab, as is provided in the Motor Vehicles Act, the person is enabled to take the vehicle with him wherever he pleases, subject, no doubt, to the terms of the contract between the parties and he uses the vehicle as his own subject to his paying the rent. Though both, rent and hire, may, in a different context, have the same connotation; in the context of rent-a-cab scheme and hiring, we are of the view that they signify two different transactions. What the lawgiver has chosen fit to tax by way of imposition of Service Tax is only transaction relating to business of renting of cabs. It is also pertinent to bear in mind that, in the case of hiring, the hirer may refuse to provide the service to the prospective customer. We cannot accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Court must ignore the provisions of Section 75 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We are of the view that, when the lawgiver introduced this new source of taxation, it must be treated as having been aware of the distinct concept of renting a cab for which there is provision in the Central Legislation, namely, Section 75 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also a scheme stood framed as early as in 1989. We are, therefore, of the view that, unless there is control, which is passed to the hirer under the rent-a-cab scheme, there cannot be a taxable transaction under Section 65(105)(o), read with Section 65(91) of the Service Tax Act.
9. The ratio of Sachin Malhotra judgment was followed by Honble High Court of Uttarakhand in their subsequent judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Cx Meerut vs. R.S. Travels, where the Honble High Court reiterated that when there is only a contract of hire and there is no renting of cab, there is no question of assessee being assessed in respect of services rendered in connection with rent-a-cab service. The above judgments of Honble High Court have been followed by the Tribunal in the following cases:
(a) CCE vs P.B. Bobde [2015(40)S.T.R 953(Tri.-Mumbai)
(b) Rahul Travels vs. CCE, Nagpur [2017(47) S.T.R. 332 (Tri.-Mumbai).
10. Following the ratio of aforesaid High Court judgments and Tribunal decisions, we also hold that in all these impugned cases, there cannot be any tax liability on the appellants till 30.06.2012, in respect of hire charges received by them for providing buses for marriage functions/pilgrimages. Accordingly, the relevant portions in these impugned orders, as applicable, where the service tax liability has been upheld in respect of these activities of the appellants till 30.06.2012, will require to be set aside which we hereby do. So ordered.
11. Coming to the period from 01.07.2012 all services unless specifically mentioned in the negative list or otherwise, specifically exempted are liable to discharge service tax.
12. Ld. Advocate for the appellants was at pains to convey that as per Section 66 (D) (o), containing the negative list, also covers service of transportation of passengers, with or without accompanied belongings by, inter-alia, (i) stage carriage. Ld. Advocate has also placed reliance on notification No. 25/2012-ST, dt. 20.06.2012 (reproduced in para 3 (e) (supra), exempting tax liability in respect of transport of passengers, with or without accompanied belongings by contract carriage for the transportation of passengers, excluding tourism, conducted tour, charter or hire.
13. We have no dispute on the factum of above provisions. It would be however appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to understand the issue better. Section 72 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 covers the grant of stage carriage permits. Sections 73 & 74 govern the procedure for obtaining a contract carriage permit, section 88 (8) provisions for grant of special permit to any public service vehicle including a stage carriage vehicle for carrying passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle as a whole, without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract.
14. Discernibly, for a vehicle having stage carriage permit like buses owned by the appellants, to operate for private persons/marriage parties under a contract, such buses will then necessarily be required to obtain a contract carriage permit or a special permit as aforesaid. In our view, once such a contract carriage permit or a special permit is obtained, the bus will then no longer have the character of a stage carriage but will instead acquire the colour of a contract carriage/special permit carriage. Viewed in this light, the buses of the appellants having become contract carriage or a special permit carriage even if for temporary permit to provide them on hire for marriages/pilgrimage etc., they cannot be considered as a stage carriage for that short period and hence cannot then claim to be covered under the negative list of services as a stage carriage for transportation of passengers, or for that matter, covered by the exemptions provided under notification 25/2012, since that exemption will not cover contract carriage on hire. In the event, the demand of service tax in all these appeals for the period from 01.07.2012 onwards is justified by law and the impugned orders are therefore sustained to that extent alongwith demand of interest liability thereon. In consequence, the appeals will also not succeed to the extent of tax liability demanded from 1.7.2012 onwards. So ordered. However, considering that the matter is one of interpretation and that the question of taxability on the services was mired in confusion and litigation, the penalties imposed in all these cases are set aside.
15. Appeals are partly allowed on the above terms.
(Order pronounced in open court on..)
(MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR) (M.V. RAVINDRAN)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
vrg
1