2016 (11) TMI 646 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - services of transmission of financial messages through swift services - telecommunication services - Held that - detailed order was passed by which the service was held to be classifiable under the category of Banking and Other Financial Services . Once by detailed findings, the tribunal concluded that the services is classifiable under banking and other financial services, there is no purpose to discuss that whether the claim of the appellant on the services of telecommunication services is correct or not. Therefore by classifying the services in question under banking and financial services it stands concluded that the telecommunication services as claimed by the appellant is not relevant. Time bar - Held that - the fact and circumstances of the present case as well as case of the bank of Baroda are absolutely identical. In the bank of Baroda case which was solely relied upon in this case, in para 7.6 it was clearly discussed that even though the penalty is not imposable under section 80 but as per first proviso to Section 73 which is independent to Section 80, extended period can be invoked. As per our above discussion, we find that applicant could not make out the case for rectification of mistake in the order as no mistake is apparently arising out of such order. We therefore dismiss the ROM application

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of service tax on the services of transmission of financial messages through swift services.
2. Rectification application filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case pertains to the demand of service tax on the transmission of financial messages through swift services. The appellant argued that the services should not be classified under the definition of telecommunication services as per Section 65(105) of the Act. The appellant also contended that the Tribunal failed to distinguish their case from a previous case regarding suppression charges.

2. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the service in question falls under the category of "banking and other financial services." The respondent emphasized that the Tribunal correctly held that the extended period for demanding service tax was applicable due to the appellant's failure to disclose the transaction of services to the department. The respondent relied on detailed findings from a previous case to support their argument.

3. Upon considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant raised two main issues for rectification: the claim of the appellant on the services being telecommunication services and the invocation of the extended period for demanding service tax. The Tribunal noted that a detailed order had already classified the service under "Banking and Other Financial Services," rendering the discussion on telecommunication services irrelevant. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the circumstances of the present case were similar to the Bank of Baroda case, where the extended period was deemed applicable despite the penalty not being imposable under Section 80.

4. The Tribunal concluded that no mistake was apparent in the order and dismissed the rectification application. It was held that since the services were classified under banking and financial services, the claim of the appellant regarding telecommunication services was not relevant. The Tribunal found that the circumstances did not warrant rectification and thus rejected the application.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's reasoning for dismissing the rectification application.