S.S. Sekhon, Member (T) - (1.)APPLICATION is filed by Revenue seeking stay of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the vehicle in question has not been employed as a tourist vehicle. The vehicle is used as a contractor, as submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents.
(2.)THE Ld. D.R. relies upon the decision in Sri Pandyan Travels v. CCE Chennai II wherein the High Court has held that contract carriage vehicles and the use therein, since the vehicle is not a tourist vehicle, service tax not payable, was not upheld and Service Tax under Section 65 (115) of Finance Act, 1994.
(3.)THE ld. Advocate relies upon Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Secy. Federn. of Bus -Operators Assn. of T.N. v. Union of India.
The issue revolves around the fact whether the said vehicle would meet the requirement of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In the present case, there is no material at this stage to show that the vehicle has been so constructed as in the case of Sri Pandyan Travels v. CCE . Therefore, following the Division Bench decision, we find no reason to grant the stay of operation of the Commissioner (Appeals) order.