9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sagree, the demand confirmed for the period from 01.04.2009 to 30.06.2012 deserves to be set aside. For the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2014, the Commissioner, Siliguri by a detailed order dated 03.09.2019, in the case of the appellant for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2014, discharged the show cause notice that was issued for demanding service tax on the amount collected by the appellant towards administrative charges and inspection charges. The Commissioner, Delhi in the order dated 02.03.2023, while adjudicating the two show cause notices issued for the period 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, has also discharged the show cause notice after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal and the Board Circular dated 23.08.2007. Appeal all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laneous Provisions Act, 1952 [the Act]. The appellant functions under the overall superintendence of the policies framed by the Central Board of Trustees, a tripartite body headed by Union Minister of Labour as Chairman. The Body administers the provisions of the Act and the following three Schemes have been framed. i. The Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952; ii. Employees Pension Scheme, 1995; and iii. Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 4. The case of the appellant is that it enforces the provisions of the Act and Schemes on the establishments covered under the said Act. It collects the contribution made by employees and employers and invests the same in the best possible manner as per the pattern prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 up to 30.06.2012 the issue raised in this appeal has been decided by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in the appellant s own case in M/s Employee Provident Fund Organisation Vs. CST, Delhi [2017 (4) TMI 902-CESTAT New Delhi] and the Civil Appeal filed by the Department to assail the order of the Tribunal was dismissed both on the ground of delay and on merits by the Supreme Court by order dated 05.10.2018 in Commissioner Vs. Employee Provident Fund Organisation [2018 (12) TMI 1580- Supreme Court]. 9. Learned consultant also pointed out that for period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2014, the issue has also been decided by the Commissioner, Siliguri by order dated 03.09.2019 while adjudicating the show cause notice dated 28.03.2018 and as also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of relevant statute for performing such functions is in the nature of compulsory levy and are deposited into Government account. It was clarified that such activities are purely in public interest and are undertaken as mandatory and statutory functions. These are not to be treated as services provided for a consideration. Therefore, suck activities assigned to and performed by a sovereign/public authority under the provisions of any law, do not constitute taxable service. Any amount/fee collected in such cases are not to be treated as consideration for the purpose of levy of service tax. 13. Having examined the scope of public authority and applying the general principles to the functions and responsibilities of the appellant we hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt relation between the appellant and the employers, no service tax liability can arise in the transaction. 18. The appellants also contested the findings of the Original Authority on the service tax liability of penal charges, interest and delayed payments, interest on investment, receipts from pension fund and other miscellaneous receipts. it is clear that penal damages received in terms of Section 14 of EPMF MP Act, 1952 cannot be considered as a consideration for a taxable service. Similarly, interest on delayed payment, interest received on investment, from pension funds cannot be subjected to service tax as there is no service related activity at all in such income. We are in agreement with the appellant on these issues. 20. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inspection charges and the relevant portions of the order are reproduced below:- 8.6. From the foregoing para, it is obvious that in view of the Hon ble CESTAT, EPFO are not liable to pay service tax on their statutory activities performed in terms of EPMF MP Act, 1952. The appellants are not providing any taxable service to the employers covered by the said Act. The consideration sought to be taxed are statutorily fixed, mandated fees and charges. No option exists with the appellant or contributor to vary such Fees or charge . The demand period covered in the case finalized by the Hon ble CESTAT is for period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2009 i.e. prior to the Negative list regime. The instant Show Cause Notice covers the period from 01.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
