Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1883 - CESTAT NEW DELHILevy of Service Tax - Banking and other financial services - receipt of the reimbursement from State Marketing Federation - exemption under N/N. 8/2004-ST dated 09.07.2004, or any other notification - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act - penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The show cause notices have been issued on 20.10.2011 invoking the extended period of limitation for the disputed period 2006-2007 to 2010-2011. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was registered with the Service Tax Department and was maintaining proper records of their transactions and paying service tax on the services taxable under the Banking and other Financial services. They were also filing regular returns with the Department. Thus, there is no question of Revenue Intelligence getting into of any short payment of service tax. As regards, none-payment of service tax on receipt of reimbursement from the State Marketing Federation, the authorised person of appellant company explained, in the course of investigation, that the same is towards the assistance in procuring paddy. The reimbursement is for the expenses in the nature of various procurement expenses like godown expenses, expenses on transportation of paddy and expenses on staff and other incidental expenses. Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The issue involved is one of interpretation. Secondly, the service provided by the appellant – Cooperative Bank to Markfed, which is the Sate Marketing Federation, is in the nature of Business Auxiliary Services provided by a Commission Agent in relation to sale or purchase of agricultural produce, which is exempt from service tax under the Notification No.13/2003-ST read with Notification No.8/2004-ST. We further find that there is no suppression of records or contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant. The issue being one of interpretation, the extended period of limitation is also not available to the Revenue. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|