Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Pandit Motor Service Vs. C.C.E.

Pandit Motor Service vs C.C.E.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 06, 2006
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42052

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pandit Motor Service

Respondent

C.C.E.

Excerpt

1. heard both sides. applicants filed this application for waiver of predeposit of service tax and penalties. in this case, the demand was confirmed by treating the applicant as tour operator as provided under section 96 of the service tax.2. the contention of the applicants is that they are stage carnage operator. another contention is that there are some tourist operators who engaged their bus to transport the passengers. applicants cannot be treated as tour operator as they are only getting the balance amount after tour operators deduct their commission.3. we have gone through the scope of tour operator as defined under section 96 of the service tax which provides that "any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the motor vehicles act, 1988. the applicants had already a permit granted by the competent authority as per the motor vehicles act. applicants contention is that applicants are operating as stage carriage and not as a contract carriage. prima facie it is not a fit case for total waiver of service tax. therefore, the applicants are directed to deposit a sum of rs. 1,50,000/- (rupees one lakh fifty thousand) within eight weeks from today. on deposit of the above-mentioned amount, the predeposit of the remaining amount of penalties is waived for hearing of the appeal adjourned to 11th may, 2006 for reporting compliance.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. Applicants filed this application for waiver of predeposit of service tax and penalties. In this case, the demand was confirmed by treating the applicant as tour operator as provided under Section 96 of the Service Tax.

2. The contention of the applicants is that they are stage carnage operator. Another contention is that there are some tourist operators who engaged their bus to transport the passengers. Applicants cannot be treated as tour operator as they are only getting the balance amount after tour operators deduct their commission.

3. We have gone through the scope of tour operator as defined under Section 96 of the Service Tax which provides that "any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The applicants had already a permit granted by the competent authority as per the Motor Vehicles Act. Applicants contention is that applicants are operating as stage carriage and not as a contract carriage. Prima facie it is not a fit case for total waiver of service tax. Therefore, the applicants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (rupees one lakh fifty thousand) within eight weeks from today. On deposit of the above-mentioned amount, the predeposit of the remaining amount of penalties is waived for hearing of the appeal Adjourned to 11th May, 2006 for reporting compliance.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial