9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Service Tax - it is found that there is no contract or understanding between appellant and the Foreign Bank. The appellant being exporter of goods is exclusively dealing with Indian Bank i.e HDFC Bank of the appellant. In such case if any charge is collected by the Indian Bank from the appellant the said activity would be liable to Service Tax that too in the hands of the Bank. In the present case the dealing is clearly between the Foreign Bank and Indian Bank, therefore in such case the appellant is not a service recipient of the Bank charges collected by the Foreign Bank from the payment remitted to the Indian Bank. The Indian Bank has only collected such charges from the appellant as a reimbursement which was born by the Indian Ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he BAS under reverse charge mechanism on the ground that the Indian Bank has deducted the same amount from the total proceed while remitting it to the appellant and thus appellant who has ultimately bears the cost. A SCN dated 23.09.2013 was issued to the appellant for demand of Service Tax on the bank charges under the category of BAS, which was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 26/JC-OP/DEM-S.Tax/Div-III ANK/2014 dated 18.09.2014, confirming the demand of Service Tax alongwith interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) disposing the appeal filed by the appellant passed the impugned order dated 29.01.2015, whereby the demand confirmed by the Joint Commissioner was upheld, therefore the present appeal fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015 (38) STR 529 (Tri-Delhi) 2.2 He further submits that entire exercise of demand of service tax is revenue neutral as Service Tax payable by the appellant as demanded by the department is available as CENVAT Credit to the appellant. Therefore, on this ground also the demand is not sustainable. He placed reliance on the following judgments: Sarovar Hotels Pvt Ltd- 2018 (10) GSTL 72 (Tri.-Mum) Jet Airways (I) Ltd-2016 (44) STR 465 (Tri-Mum) Coca-cola India Pvt Ltd-2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC) Indeos ABS Ltd-2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj.) Indeos ABS Ltd-2011 (267) ELT A 155 (SC) 2.3 He further submits that for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13, the demand was raised beyond the normal period by issuing SCN dated 23.09.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant the said activity would be liable to Service Tax that too in the hands of the Bank. In the present case the dealing is clearly between the Foreign Bank and Indian Bank, therefore in such case the appellant is not a service recipient of the Bank charges collected by the Foreign Bank from the payment remitted to the Indian Bank. In this case the Indian Bank has to be considered as service recipient, therefore, the appellant being not a service recipient of the service, if any, provided by Foreign Bank, the appellant cannot be charged to Service Tax on such charges. The Indian Bank has only collected such charges from the appellant as a reimbursement which was born by the Indian Bank while transacting with the Foreign Bank. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
