9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons viz. fluctuation in currency rate etc. In other words, the profit element in question earned by the appellants is out of trading of the foreign currencies and not as a consideration for the services rendered towards purchase and sale of foreign currency, on which due service tax liability had already been discharged by the appellants. Since there is no element of any provision of service, by which the disputed profit margin, was generated, the said element of profit shall not be considered as a taxable value for the purpose of levy of service tax. This Tribunal in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA COMMERCIAL BRANCH VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., JAIPUR [ 2012 (2) TMI 494 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and M/S STATE BANK OF BIKANER JAIPUR VERS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the period 16.05.2008 to 31.03.2011. Besides, impugned order has also confirmed the interest demands and imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellants under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rs. 5000/- under Section 77 ibid. The adjudged demands were confirmed on the ground that the margin money/profit/Spread earned out of Foreign Currency (FC) transactions is to be treated as consideration for provision of the taxable service by the appellants and such amount should be chargeable to payment of service tax. 2. Briefly stated, the fact of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in providing various taxable services, including Banking and other Financial Services, defined as taxable service under the Finance Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Andhra Bank, the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad has dropped the proposals made in show cause notice, seeking confirmation of the adjudged demands in respect of the profit earned on the transaction of foreign exchange. He also submitted that said order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad was accepted by the Committee of Chief Commissioners and no appeal was filed before the appellate forum. Thus, he pleaded for setting aside the impugned order on the ground that the issue is no more open for any debate. 4. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and examine the case r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be considered as a taxable value for the purpose of levy of service tax. 7. We find that this Tribunal in the case of State Bank of India (supra) and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (supra) has held that margin of profit is not taxable under the Finance Act, 1994 and it is only the gross value, which is recognised under the statute for sufferance of the tax element on the value of the services rendered, which admittedly, the appellants in this case, has duly complied with. Further, we also find that the adjudication Order dated 23.02.2017 (supra) passed by the Hyderabad Commissionerate in the case of Andhra Bank, in dropping the proposed demand made in the SCN, was also accepted by the Committee of Chief Commissioners, which is e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
