9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - the SCN has clearly proposed the demand of service tax only on the ground that appellants are a financial institution and not on a charge that their services are taxable since they have been done ‚by any other person‛. This being so, this argument of the Ld. A.R is therefore outside the scope of the SCN and hence cannot be raised at this stage. Taking into account that appellants are only a Charitable Trust and have already paid up remaining demand pertaining to Rent-a-cab service amounting to ₹ 1,46,260/-, we also set aside any penalty in respect of that demand - the impugned order confirming the tax liability along with interest and penalty against the appellant on ‘Banking and Other Financial Services’ will require to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inition, the service provided only by a (a) Banking Company or (b) Financial Institution including a non-Banking Financial Company or (c) any other body corporate or (d) commercial concern would be taxable under this heading. 2.2 Ld. Consultant submits a copy of extract of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and points out that Financial Institution‛ for this purpose would require to be only a non-banking institution‛ which carries on as its business or part of its business listed in that sub-section. The term non-banking institution‛ is also explained in Section 45-I of the RBI Act, 1934 to mean a company, corporation or cooperative society‛ ; that the term non-banking financial company‛ in Section 65 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tri.-Chennai) to support the contention that the appellant being public charitable trust cannot be considered as a commercial concern. (c) The ratio of Raja Charity Trust decision has been followed by CESTAT Chennai in Microcredit Foundation of India Ltd. Vs CST Chennai vide Final Order No.42905/2017 dt. 09.11.2017. 2.5 Ld. Advocate pointed out that there is a demand of ₹ 1,46,260/- for the period April 2008 to March 2009 on Rent-a-cab service on reverse charge basis, which they are not contesting and are accepting the same. He submits that non payment of service tax under this category was only on account of ignorance of law, being a charitable trust and in any case, they had paid up the liability even before the issue of SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso not hit the appellants since that definition would only mean a company, corporation or cooperative society‛, which the appellants are not. In the circumstances, the appellants cannot be termed as a banking company or banking institution including a non-banking financial company for the purposes of Section 65 (12) of the Finance Act, 1994. 6. From paras 6 to 9 of the SCN, we find that the proposal to demand service tax liability under Section 65 (12) ibid is only on the allegation that the appellants are a financial institution . It is only this allegation that has been examined and taken forward by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. For example, in para-25 of the order, the adjudicating authority concludes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
