Sandeep Sobti Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Sandeep Sobti vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 06, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43607

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/43607
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: R Abichandani, S T T.V.
Decided On: Sep 06, 2006
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

Sandeep Sobti

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Excerpt

.....office on 4-1-2005, stating therein that they did not render any service under rent-a-cab scheme.it is further stated in the said letter, that they were not running the cab but were hiring vehicles. it was also stated by them that they were not license holder but permit holder. from a perusal of the record, we do not find any plea made by the appellants that the services rendered by them were restricted to two buses and not in respect of taxis or cabs, as concluded in the impugned order.3. the learned sdr points out that while passing the order in original, it appears that the reply which was received on 4-1-2005, was taken into consideration by the deputy commissioner. as regards the order issued by the commissioner (appeals), there is also a clear mention that the submission made by the appellant at the time of personal hearing, has been 'carefully' gone through by the commissioner (appeals).4. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the appellant shall deposit a sum of rs. 10,000/- within six weeks from today failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed. on depositing the said amount, the balance amount of service tax demanded in the impugned order, shall stand waived. compliance to be reported on 10th october, 2006. the application stands disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Sandeep Sobti. The appellant is challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) passed on 20-4-2006. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that the appellant was providing the services as Rent-a-Cab Scheme operator and he was liable to pay the service tax demanded by the lower authorities besides the penalty.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that no show cause notice was served on them. In their appeal, they have also stated that no opportunity of hearing was granted to them while passing the ex parte order. He further produces an agreement dated 1st April, 2001 entered into with Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. As per this agreement, he argues that it is clear that the services provided by them did not at all relate to 'rent-a-cab' scheme operator service but what was rendered in their case, was neither a taxi nor a cab but buses. He pleaded that running the bus is not covered under the Service tax provisions. However, we notice in Para 12 of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 28-4-2005 that there is clear reference of party's letter dated nil received by the office on 4-1-2005, stating therein that they did not render any service under rent-a-cab scheme.

It is further stated in the said letter, that they were not running the cab but were hiring vehicles. It was also stated by them that they were not license holder but permit holder. From a perusal of the record, we do not find any plea made by the appellants that the services rendered by them were restricted to two buses and not in respect of taxis or cabs, as concluded in the impugned order.

3. The learned SDR points out that while passing the order in original, it appears that the reply which was received on 4-1-2005, was taken into consideration by the Deputy Commissioner. As regards the order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), there is also a clear mention that the submission made by the appellant at the time of personal hearing, has been 'carefully' gone through by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within six weeks from today failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed. On depositing the said amount, the balance amount of Service tax demanded in the impugned order, shall stand waived. Compliance to be reported on 10th October, 2006. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Sandeep Sobti vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge R Abichandani, S T T.V.