2009 (11) TMI 351 - AT - Service Tax

Banking and Other Financial Services- The assessee has been involved in the financing for the purchase of vehicles terming it as hypothecation. finance and the amounts charged from the customers was called as service charges but no Service tax was paid on the interest portion of the charges received from the customers. Show cause notices were issued for the recovery of the escaped Service tax and also for levy of interest and imposition of penalty. Held that- the appellants are simply lending money as per the records available and receiving interest. The lending during the relevant period was not a taxable service. Even if it is held that the appellant is giving money under the Hire Purchase Scheme . Hence the impugned order is set aside. We allow the appeal with consequential relief.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the services rendered by the appellant fall under taxable service category?
2. Whether interest earned by the appellant is liable to be taxed under Service tax?
3. Whether penalty under section 78 is justified in this case?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute regarding the taxation of services provided by the appellant, who was involved in financing the purchase of vehicles and charging service charges from customers. The Revenue claimed that the services fell under the taxable category of "Finance leasing services including equipment leasing and the purchase under the category of Banking and Other Financial Services." Show cause notices were issued for recovery of escaped Service tax. The adjudicating authority initially dropped the proceedings, but the Revisionary Authority reviewed and confirmed the demands. The appellant argued that their activity was lending money and not hire purchase finance, emphasizing that interest on lending was not subject to Service tax as per specific exclusions in the law.

Issue 2:
The appellant contended that the interest earned was not liable to be taxed under Service tax based on specific amendments in the law excluding interest on loans from the levy of Service tax. The appellant also cited a similar case to support their argument, where it was held that lending money during the relevant period was not a taxable service. The Tribunal found that the appellant was simply lending money and receiving interest, which did not constitute a taxable service under banking and financial services. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Issue 3:
Regarding the penalty under section 78, the appellant argued that none of the conditions for imposing the penalty applied in their case, as the demand arose due to a difference in interpretation between the Commissioner and the adjudicating authority. The appellant's position was supported by a decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed that since the issue was covered by their previous decision and the appellant's view had merit, the penalty under section 78 was not justified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, including the cancellation of demands, interest, and penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the services provided did not fall under the taxable category, and the interest earned was not subject to Service tax. Additionally, the penalty under section 78 was deemed unjustified in this case.