2008 (7) TMI 147 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant-Bank - It is not in dispute that the impugned demand is not on any amount of money lent by the bank to its borrowers. It is on the appraisers charges directly collected from the borrowers, which amounts had nothing to do with Other Financial Services mentioned under sub-clause (viii) of clause (12) of Section 65 - impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of service tax on charges collected by appraisers from bank borrowers for jewellery appraisal services.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI involved a dispute regarding the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 3,77,222/- imposed on the appellant-Bank by the Commissioner of Service Tax for the period between 10-9-2004 to 31-3-2006. The tax was levied on the entire amount collected by jewellery appraisers from the bank's borrowers and deposited with the bank. The appraisers charged fees for appraising gold jewellery offered as collateral for loans, and the bank would recover 30% of these fees towards stationery expenses. The demand was made under the category of "Banking and Other Financial Services" as per Section 65(12) of the Finance Act, 1994, specifically under sub-clause (viii) of clause (12) which includes "Other Financial Services" like lending.

The appellant argued that the demand was not on any amount lent by the bank but on the charges collected directly from the borrowers by the appraisers. The Tribunal considered this argument and found that the impugned demand was indeed not related to any money lent by the bank to its borrowers. The charges collected by the appraisers were for the appraisal services and were not covered under the definition of "Other Financial Services" mentioned in the relevant section of the Finance Act, 1994. After careful consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal accepted the bank's plea and set aside the impugned order, thereby allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI ruled in favor of the appellant-Bank, holding that the demand of service tax on the charges collected by jewellery appraisers from the bank's borrowers was not sustainable in law as it was not related to any amount lent by the bank and did not fall under the category of "Other Financial Services" as defined in the Finance Act, 1994.