2006 (11) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... period of dispute in these appeals is 16-8-2002 to 31-3-2005, for which the lower authority has demanded Service Tax of Rs. 2,68,68,830/- on the ground that the services rendered by them during the said period were in the nature of Banking and other Financial Services defined under Section 65(11) of the above Act. This provision reads as under :- 65 (11) banking and other financial services means, the following services provided by a banking company or a financial institution including a non-banking financial company of any other body corporate, namely :- (i) financial leasing services including equipment leasing, and hire-purchase by a body corporate; (ii) ... (iii) ... (iv) ... .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eference to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Learned Counsel has also relied on a letter of the Government in support of her argument that equipment leasing is not a financial leasing service. But what is discernible from this letter is that financial leasing includes equipment leasing and hire-purchase also. The subject matter of this letter seems to be only quantification of Service Tax. Hence this letter does not appear to support the appellants, for the present purpose. From the definition of banking and other financial services appearing in Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, it appears to us that equipment leasing provided by any body corporate is a taxable service. Admittedly, the appellants are a body corpor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned, on their own accord, registration from the department for the said services. It was only towards the end of the period of dispute that they applied for de-registration. Thus, for the period of dispute, the appellants were liable to pay tax to the exchequer in respect of the services for which they were registered with the department. Learned Counsel has pointed out, at this stage, that, if that be so, the appellants have a good case against the quantum of tax demanded. It is submitted that many numerical factors which were not to be included in the assessable value for levy of Service Tax were erroneously included by Commissioner. According to learned Counsel, if the tax is quantified correctly, the liability of the appellants would st .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X