9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [ 2018 (5) TMI 825 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] and M/S DILEEP INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR [ 2017 (10) TMI 1231 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ], has held that the appellant cannot be treated as service recipient and no service tax can be charged under Section 66A read with Rule 2 (1)(2)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The issue in the case on hand stands settled in favour of appellant and consequently, the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 40567 of 2014 - FINAL ORDER NO. 40555 / 2023 - Dated:- 14-7-2023 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Manne Veera Niveditha, Advocate for the Appellant Shri N. Satyanarayanan, Assistant Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same is settled in favour of the appellant in the appellant s own case for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 by this very Bench of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 40223 of 2023 dated 31.03.2023. 4. Per contra, Shri N. Satynarayanan, Ld. Assistant Commissioner appearing for the Revenue, supported the findings of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and we have gone through the orders referred to during the course of arguments. 6. Upon hearing both sides, we find that the only issue to be decided by us is: whether the amount deducted by the foreign bank towards the bank charges were taxable under Banking and other Financial Services for the period 2011-12? 7. We find that the very same issue has been sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice tax or not has been decided by the CESTAT Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of Theme Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Delhi (supra), by relying on the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Dileep Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur (supra), where the Tribunal held as under:- 4. We find that the issue arising out of present dispute is no more res integra, in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Dileep Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur -2017 (10) TMI 1231-CESTAT, New Delhi. The relevant paragraph in the said decision is extracted herein below:- 4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the first issue is pertaining to the collection charges of the Indian b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant s counsel, no appeal has been filed against that order. In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable, the same is set aside and appeal is allowed . 5. By following our earlier decision (supra), we allow the claim of the appellant in this regard. 5.3 As the issue is resolved on merits, there is no need to discuss about invocability of extended period in this case and also regarding legality of imposition of penalties. 8. In view of the above, we agree with the contentions of the Ld. Advocate that the issue in the case on hand stands settled in their favour and consequently, set aside the impugned order. 9. Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. (Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
