ORDER
B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)
1. The appellants entered into an agreement with the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to make available ambassador cars, jeep cars etc. at any time on a fixed rate per kilometer. They have filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that this amounts to rendering rent-a-cab service and attracts the service tax.
2. Heard both the parties. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant refers to the order passed by the Tribunal in case of Dharmabhakti Travels v. CCE Rajkot as reported in 2007 (9) STT 332 (AHD-CESTAT). In that case, the appellant was rendering service to BSNL on similar conditions and relying on the Tribunal’s order in the case of Kuldip Singh Gill v. CCE, as reported in 2005 (2) STT 34 (New Delhi-CESTAT), wherein it was held that the appellants cannot come under rent-a-cab operator service and stay was allowed.
3. Heard both sides.
4. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellant failed to appear for the personal hearings fixed on 4 days and failed to furnish proof of pre-deposit. The appellant also claimed in their appeal petition that personal hearings which were fixed on 8.10.07 was adjourned to 18.10.07 because of non-availability of Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant also states that he could not appear for personal hearing because of ill health.
5. Since the principles of natural justice have not been observed and the appellant has made out a prima facie case for stay in view of the order of the Tribunal referred to above, the appeal is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) who will decide the case afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellant to appear of hearing if required by them. Stay petition and the appeal are decided on the above terms.
(Pronounced in the open court)