9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Taxability of vehicles provided under Hire-Purchase Agreement under banking and financial services category. 2. Interpretation of the term "body corporate" by the Authority. 3. Applicability of Service tax on the activity carried out by the Appellant. 4. Waiver of pre-deposit during the pendency of the Appeal. Analysis: 1. The Appellant argued that the vehicles provided under Hire-Purchase Agreement were wrongly taxed under banking and financial services. They relied on a circular and a Tribunal decision to support their claim. The Appellant requested the waiver of pre-deposit during the appeal. 2. The Revenue supported the order of the Authorities, stating that the cited decision did not favor the Appellant, and they were liable to pay Service tax. 3. The Tribunal examined the issue and referred to Section 65(12) of the Finance Act, 1994, which defines banking company or financial institution. The Tribunal highlighted that the definition of banking company and financial institution under the Act did not seem to bring the Appellant under the purview of taxable services. However, the Tribunal clarified that this was not the final opinion, as the appeal was pending. 4. The Tribunal, on a preliminary assessment, found that the services provided by the Appellant did not appear to be taxable under Section 65(12) of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the requirement of pre-deposit during the appeal process, indicating a favorable stance towards the Appellant's position. This judgment delves into the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and definitions to determine the taxability of services provided under a Hire-Purchase Agreement. The Tribunal's decision to waive pre-deposit during the appeal signifies a provisional assessment in favor of the Appellant's argument regarding the non-taxability of their services under banking and financial categories.
|
