Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Prasanna Travels Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune ... on 24 July, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. I
Application No. ST/S/462/12 in Appeal No. ST/108/2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/RS/340/2011 dated 30.11.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune III.)
For approval and signature
Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President
Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Prasanna Travels Pvt Ltd
Appellant
(Represented by: Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate)
Vs
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III
Respondent
(Represented by: Mr. V.R. Kulkarni, Deputy Commissioner (A.R)) CORAM:
Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 24.07.2012 Date of Decision: 24.07.2012 ORDER NO..
Per: S.S. Kang
1. Heard both sides.
2. The applicant filed the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 5,47,257/- and interest.
3. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant demanding service tax on the ground that the applicants conducting tour operator service. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. However, on appeal filed by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and confirmed the demand on the ground that the applicants are providing tour operator service.
4. The contention of the applicant is that tour operating service referred to in Section 65 (105) (n) of the Finance Act, 1994 is exempted from levy of service tax vide Notification No. 20/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 with retrospective effect from 01 April, 2000. The contention is that in view of the above exemption Notification, the applicants are not liable to pay service tax. However, the applicants fairly admitted that the Notification was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence there is no finding on this issue.
5. The Revenue relies upon the finding in the impugned order and submitted that the tourist vehicle means contract carriage constructed or adapted and equipped and maintained in accordance with such specifications as may be prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence as the applicants are having tourist vehicles and for operating the same under the contract carriage permits, therefore, the applicants are engaged in the business of operating tour in a tourist vehicle. Hence the demand is rightly made.
6. We find that the applicants submission is that the tour operator service is exempted under Notification No. 20/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 and by Section 72 of the Finance Act, 2011 with retrospective effect. This notification was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of this, the matter requires reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) afresh. We therefore waive the pre-deposit and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh the matter after taking into consideration the provisions of the above mentioned Notification and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant.
7. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated in Court.) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President rk 3