2012 (11) TMI 1076 - AT - Service Tax

Banking & other financial services - Assessee provides service of payment and receiving money on behalf of the government - Penalty u/s 76 - Held that - Assessee submits that on the identical issue in the case of Canara Bank v. CST 2012 (6) TMI 274 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD has held that such activity does not fall under the category of Banking and Financial service and the above activity is exempt from banking and financial services. As the issue has attained finality by the order of the Tribunal in Canara Bank (supra) therefore following the same, we hold that the appellant are not liable to pay service tax confirmed against them by way of impugned order and we set aside the demand of service tax. There is no imposition of penalty on the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service tax demand confirmed under 'Banking & other financial services'
2. Non-imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994

Analysis:

Issue 1: Service tax demand under 'Banking & other financial services'
The appeal was filed by Union Bank of India against the confirmed service tax demand on the activity of payment and receiving money on behalf of the government, involving various transactions like public deposit, RBI bond, EPF, senior citizen saving scheme, and compulsory deposit scheme. The revenue also appealed against the non-imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue was addressed in the case of Canara Bank v. CST, where it was held that such activities do not fall under the category of Banking and Financial services, thus being exempt from service tax. Relying on the precedent set by the Canara Bank case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the service tax demand and not imposing any penalty.

Issue 2: Non-imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994
The Tribunal, considering both appeals arising from the same order, disposed of them through a common order. The appellant's counsel cited the Canara Bank case, emphasizing that the activity in question should be exempt from banking and financial services, as per the Tribunal's previous ruling. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay the confirmed service tax demand and hence set it aside. Additionally, no penalty was imposed on the appellant. As a result, the appeal filed by Union Bank of India was allowed with consequential relief, while the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

This judgment highlights the importance of legal precedents in tax matters and the significance of consistent interpretation and application of laws across similar cases. The Tribunal's decision provides clarity on the taxability of specific financial activities and the exemption criteria under the relevant laws.