ORDER
M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides on the stay petition.
2. The ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the appellants are owning certain taxis and providing transport services to the employees of BSNL as per agreement with the BSNL. The vehicles are not given on rent to the BSNL; the vehicles are in the control of the appellants and run by the drivers employed by the appellants and the appellants are paid on the basis of kilometers run by the vehicles. Therefore the services rendered by the appellants cannot come under ‘running-a-cab operator’ as held by CESTAT’s order in the case of Kuldip Singh Gill v. CCE in Order No. A/661 of 2005-NB in Appeal No. ST/95/04-NB (SM), dt. 12-5-2005 .
3. After hearing both sides, I feel the cases of the appellants are prima facie covered by the order of the Tribunal and therefore they have made out a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit and accordingly pre-deposit of the amounts is waived and recovery thereof stayed. The appeals are to come in its due course.
(Dictated and Pronounced in Court)