9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds is covered under notification No. 13/2003-ST and hence any commission received for such activity, no tax is payable - demand set aside. Commission received on collection of telephone bills - period involved is July 2003 to 09.09.2004 - Held that:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Limited [2016 (3) TMI 354 - SUPREME COURT] has categorically held that services provided by banks for collection of telephone bills, insurance premium on behalf of the client companies have to be considered as cash management service and cannot be considered under the category of business auxiliary services - demand set aside. Amount of commission received on money transfer - period from July 2003 to 09.09.2004 - Held that:- The ratio of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility on the respondent bank herein. The case of the Revenue in the show cause notice is that the respondent had rendered some services which are classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service . Accordingly, show cause notice dated 15.05.2008 was issued proposing to demand service tax on the services rendered. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands raised along with interest and imposed equivalent amount of penalty. The first appellate authority set aside the order of the adjudicating authority. 4. It is seen that the services on which demands have been confirmed by the adjudicating authority but set aside by the first appellate authority, are as under: (a) Commission received on sale of Mutual fund units of IDBI- Principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.N. Vijay Financial services (P) Ltd. [2008(9)TMI 72 (CESTAT, New Delhi]; Geojit Financial Services Ltd. [2018(1) TMI 59 (Cestat-Bang.)]; Federal Bank Limited [2016(3)TMI354 (SC); Corporation Bank [2016(11) TMI 22 (CESTAT-Bang.)]; Western Union Financial Services [2018(1) TMI 1175 (CESTAT-New Delhi) and HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014(1) TMI 1611 (CESTAT-Mum.)]. It was also submitted by CA that the extended period cannot be invoked in this case and relied on the decision of Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. [2018 (5) TMI 987 (Rajasthan HC). 7. On careful consideration, we find that the demand of service tax is for the period July 2003 to June 2006. The demand is in respect of the amounts received as commission from various agencies fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of Federal Bank Limited (supra) would squarely cover the issues in favour of the respondent and is also the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Western Union Financial Services (Supra). We do not find any reason to deviate from such a view already taken. 11. As regards the commission received on sale of Government of India bonds, the period involved is from July 2003 to June 2006, identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (supra) wherein the Tribunal held that sale of RBI bonds and receipt of brokerage being the transaction of government securities, there is no service tax liability. The said view is followed by the Revenue in the case of CITI Bank [2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
