Ganesh Maniyani Vs. the Commissioner of Central - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this appeal is against order-in-appeal no. 107/2007 ce dated 9.3.2007 passed by the commissioner of central excise (appeals), mangalore.2. the learned consultant shri c.r. raghavendra stated that the appellant owns an ambassador car and two tempos. he is rendering the services of transporting newspapers for m/s. manipal media network ltd. revenue proceeded against the appellant for not discharging the liability under the category of 'rent-a-cab' operator.3. the learned departmental representative shri sambi reddy pointed out that the appellant is registered with the transport authorities under the motor vehicles act as 'taxi cab'. he is also receiving the remuneration from the service recipient. in these circumstances, he argued strongly that the appellant is surely covered under the category of 'rent-a-cab' services. however, the learned consultant invited my attention to the decision of the tribunal in the case of kuldip singh gill v. cce, jalandhar 2006 (3) str 689 (tri.-del) wherein under similar circumstance it was held that transport operation under contract in which amounts are received for each trip depending upon distance, time, etc., would not come under the category of 'rent-a-cab' service. he said this case is on a much stronger footing that only goods were transported and not passengers.4. on a very careful consideration of the entire issue, i find that there is no evidence to show that the vehicles have been rented-out to the service recipient. my attention was also invited to the trip sheets maintained by the appellants. it was urged that the appellant is an illiterate person and is not maintaining any detailed accounts.however based on the trips made by the vehicles he was being paid by the service recipient. in my view the situation is similar to that case cited supra. therefore, i am inclined to give the benefit to the appellant.

Judgment:
1. This appeal is against Order-in-Appeal No. 107/2007 CE dated 9.3.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore.

2. The learned Consultant Shri C.R. Raghavendra stated that the appellant owns an Ambassador Car and two tempos. He is rendering the services of transporting newspapers for M/s. Manipal Media Network Ltd. Revenue proceeded against the appellant for not discharging the liability under the category of 'Rent-a-Cab' operator.

3. The learned departmental representative Shri Sambi Reddy pointed out that the appellant is registered with the transport authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act as 'Taxi Cab'. He is also receiving the remuneration from the service recipient. In these circumstances, he argued strongly that the appellant is surely covered under the category of 'Rent-a-Cab' services. However, the learned Consultant invited my attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kuldip Singh Gill v. CCE, Jalandhar 2006 (3) STR 689 (Tri.-Del) wherein under similar circumstance it was held that transport operation under contract in which amounts are received for each trip depending upon distance, time, etc., would not come under the category of 'Rent-a-Cab' service. He said this case is on a much stronger footing that only goods were transported and not passengers.

4. On a very careful consideration of the entire issue, I find that there is no evidence to show that the vehicles have been rented-out to the service recipient. My attention was also invited to the trip sheets maintained by the appellants. It was urged that the appellant is an illiterate person and is not maintaining any detailed accounts.

However based on the trips made by the vehicles he was being paid by the service recipient. In my view the situation is similar to that case cited supra. Therefore, I am inclined to give the benefit to the appellant.