9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges collected are liable to pay service tax under the category of 'Banking and financial Services' as defined under section 65(12) of the Finance Act, 1994. Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts - HELD THAT:- The entire demand has been confirmed in the impugned order based the information available in the balance sheet. The department has not brought in any evidence to substantiate the allegation of suppression. Accordingly, the demand confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period is not sustainable. The Appellant is liable to pay service tax, if any, on the normal period of limitation, along with interest. Demand of service tax - receipts of the Appellant from Agricultural Insurance Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount. Accordingly, the demand of service tax on this amount is not sustainable. Appeal disposed off. - MR. R. MURALIDHAR MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. K. ANPAZHAKAN MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Somak Basu, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. Chowdhury, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed against the impugned Order-in- Appeal dated 30.03.2013 filed by the Appellant, wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand of Rs.22,26,137/- confirmed in the Order-in-Original along with interest and penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. In the impugned order service tax has been demanded under the category of 'Banking and Financial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They have not received any money on account of collection of out station cheques. 2.3. Rs.43,500/- was deducted by State Bank Of India, Midnapore Branch from the accounts of appellant as banking cash transaction tax, which is not applicable to co-operative banks. The wrongly deducted amount was credited to their account later. Hence, no service tax payable on this amount. 3. The Ld. D.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 5. We observe that the impugned order has confirmed a consolidated demand of Rs.22,26,137/-. However, the Appellant has given a break of the demand under four different categories. 5.1. Regarding the demand made under the category of 'Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold that the demand confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period is not sustainable. The Appellant is liable to pay service tax, if any, on the normal period of limitation, along with interest. 5.3. Regarding the demand of service tax confirmed on the receipts of the Appellant from Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. for collection of crop insurance premium from cultivators and/or agriculturists under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, we observe that such services are exempted under Notification 3/2000-ST dated 06.07.2000. We find that the decision cited in the case of Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and service tax, Rajkot, vide Final Order No. 11281/2023 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is not provided to a specific service of insurance but all the services if it is provided in relation to general insurance business provided under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme or the pilot scheme on Seed Crop Insurance or the farm Income Insurance scheme. In the present case, the appellant have admittedly provided service for collection of premium in relation to the general insurance business provided under the aforesaid government scheme. Therefore, the appellant are clearly eligible for the exemption notification. 5. On careful perusal of the Commissioner (Appeals) order, though he has recorded the claim of notification by the appellant but except for the general findings, no specific finding on the admissibility of noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following order: (i) In respect of the service charges collected @1% of the total salary disbursed for the period 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2008, the Appellant is liable to pay service tax, if any, on the normal period of limitation, along with interest. (ii) In respect of the demand confirmed in the impugned order on the receipts from Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., the demand is not sustainable and set aside. (iii) The demand of service tax on the service charges deducted by the out station banks for the collection of out station cheques is not sustainable. (iv) The demand confirmed on the amount of Rs.43,500/- deducted by State Bank Of India, Midnapore Branch is not sustainable and set aside. (v) The penalties im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
