9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T/603 of 2011 the department is in appeal for non imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. State Bank of India is providing taxable services falling under the category of Banking and Other Financial Services and registered with the department. On the basis of the intelligence gathered by the officers of Director General. Central Excise Intelligence, it was revealed that State Bank of India provided taxable services in relation to operation of accounts of the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) classifiable under Banking and other financial services. However, State Bank of India did not make any pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the Central Government for collecting and making payments towards Employees Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance. It is his submission that the said amounts which were collected by the appellant is a statutory function, which has been given to them by virtue of the provisions of Reserve Bank of India Act. It is his submission that having done the statutory function, any amount received as commission, is not taxable in the hands of the appellant, as had this action been conducted by the RBI itself, than there would not have been any levy of service tax liability. It is his submission that this ratio has been laid down by this Bench in the case of Canara Bank vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore, reported as 2012(28) STR 369. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a claim that the records are lost in flood in the year 2005, I have to held that the certificate produced by the learned advocate to be correct as on date. Since the appellant, State Bank of India has already discharged the service tax liability and in my opinion, such service tax liability need not have been paid by them as per the decision given by this Bench in the case of Canara Bank (wherein I was one of the Member). I find that there is no reason for visiting the appellant with penalty that has been imposed by the lower authorities. In the case of appellant, the appeal is for setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 8. Since I have already held that the appellant has discharged the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
