9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of a sovereign function performed on behalf of the Government and hence not liable to Service Tax. The impugned order is not sustainable - Appeal allowed. - MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Ravi Chopra, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ravinder Jangu, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise Chandigarh-I whereby the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order passed by the original authority. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that during the audit of the records of the appellant for the period 10.09.04 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order has confirmed the order for demand of service tax of Rs. 4,73,017/- (Rs. 1,22,591+3,50,426) along with interest and set-aside the demand of balance amount of Rs. 20,34,521/-. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has also set-aside the penalty under Section 76 and 77 and also reduce the penalty under Section 78 to the extent of demand confirmed i.e. 4,73,017/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submits that the issue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on from the payment of service tax of any taxable services provided to or by RBI either in India or under Reverse Charge Mechanism. In our view as the respondent-assessee is an agent of RBI, exemption granted by Notification No. 22/2006-S.T., needs to be extended to respondent. In our view the claim of the respondent from exemption of the service tax on the commission received for undertaking the activity of receiving various taxes on behalf of the Govt. of India, seems to be justified inasmuch as that the provisions of Section 45 of RBI Act categorically mandated for appointing national bank or a State Bank by the RBI for specified purposes as directed by Government; and the said Section also mandates that such Banks will be agents of RBI. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Canara Bank [2012-TIOL-790-CESTAT-AHM = 2012 (28) S.T.R. 369 (Tri.-Ahmd.)], has correctly interpreted Notification No. 22/2006-S.T. and is correct exposition of the law. In our view the said judgment does not require any reconsideration. 7. Further, we find that the said decision of the Larger Bench has been affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of C.S.T-Bangalore vs. Canara Bank cited (supra) wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has observed in paras 5 to 7 has held as under:- 5 . The Tribunal referred the issue to a Larger Bench in view of differing opinions rendered by various Benches. By the impugned orders, the Tribunal concluded that the services rendered by the Scheduled Banks as statutory agent under Section 45 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
