P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member - All these applications seek waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the respective adjudged dues. The applicants/appellants are contesting demands of service tax with education cess to various extents raised on them under the head 'rent-a-cab' service. They are also contesting the demands of interest on tax. On a perusal of the records, we find that all these parties had made available their buses to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) under agreements where-under the APSRTC would ply these buses on predetermined routes covered by stage carriage permits held by the bus owners, with a time schedule fixed by the APSRTC, and the bus owners would provide the services of drivers to the Corporation and would be paid by the Corporation hire charges per km. The conductors employed by the Corporation would collect passenger fares as fixed by the Corporation/State Government. The buses were to be maintained in road-worthy condition by the owners/appellants. The insurance should be taken by the owners but showing the Corporation as the hirer in the insurance certificates and the Corporation would accordingly pay the premium. The impugned demands are on the gross amounts of hire charges paid to the appellants by the Corporation during the respective periods of dispute. These demands are under the head 'rent-a-cab' service.

2. After hearing both sides, we note that the main ground of challenge to the above demands is that the buses covered by stage carriage permits and operated as a means of public transport were outside the scope of levy itself. In support of this case, the learned counsel has invited our attention to the definition of 'tour operator' under Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994 and has argued that, once a motor vehicle is covered by a stage carriage permit, it stands outside the levy of service tax. In this context, the learned counsel for all the appellants have extensively referred to the relevant terms and conditions of the agreements.

3. We have heard the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) also who invites our attention to the definitions of "cab" [Section 65(20)] and "rent-a-cab scheme operator" [Section 65(91)] and submits that, on the terms and conditions of the agreements and the facts of the cases, the vehicles in question would squarely fit in the definition of "cab" and hence the operations with such vehicles would squarely get covered by the definition of "rent-a-cab" service. It is pointed out that there is no reference to 'stage carriage permit' in any of the agreements though it is not in dispute that all the buses were covered by stage carriage permits. It is further submitted that it appears from the agreements that the buses were to be covered by 'contract carriage permits'. According to the learned Additional Commissioner (AR), as the buses were under the possession and control of the appellants and were operated by the appellants, these vehicles cannot be recognized as "stage carriages" as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act/Rules and, therefore, the appellants cannot validly contest the demands raised under head "rent-a-cab" service. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) has also claimed support from the Tribunal's decision in the case of Lok Priya Travels v. CST [Final Order No. A/1406 of 2011, dated 12-8-2011]

4. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we are of the view that the exact nature of the activity undertaken by the appellant has to be examined in detail at final hearing stage. For the present purpose, we have studied the terms and conditions of a specimen agreement (Agreement dated 24-4-2009 between APSRTC and Shri MD Yousuf Pasha, appellant in S.T./2922/2011) and have found (a) that the bus owned by the appellant and operated as a stage carriage for the Corporation on Karimnagar-Mancherial route was a bus having seating capacity of 55+2, (b) that the bus was to be operated on the said rout