TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UOI [2010 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], we hold that the appellants providing ATMs and other ATM related activities do not fall under BOF as Financial leasing including equipment leasing and transfer of information or data processing. - Decided against the revenue. - ST/147-148/2006 & ST/127/2007 - FINAL ORDER No. 40901 - 40903 / 2014 - Dated:- 14-11-2014 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri R. Periasami, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. L. Maithili, Adv., For the Respondent : Shri P. Arul, Supdt. (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: R. PERIASAMI; The appellants filed these appeals against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai. The issue involved in these appeals is common and therefore, taken up together for disposal. 2. The brief facts of the case, are that, the appellants are engaged in the business of providing ATM facilities and other allied activities related to ATM services to various nationalized banks and to other banks. Three Show cause notices were issued to the appellants demanding service tax under the category of Banking and other Financial services (BOF), for the period from 16.08.2002 to 15.06.2005. The adjudicating authority confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... networking communication or leased lines and the entire facilities are controlled by the switch at the appellant s premises. It is not a financial leasing or equipment leasing service. The ownership continues to remain with the appellants. Where ATMs owned by the banks, they carry out the maintenance of ATMs and other related activities as per the agreement. As per the agreement they received consideration as facility charges per ATM on per day basis. It is not covered under banking and other financial services as alleged by the department. She relied upon the following decisions in support of her argument: 1. NCR Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST,Bang. 2008 (12) STR 68 (Tri.- Bang.) 2. CCE, Vadodara-I Vs. G.E. (I) Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (12) STR 609 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 3. Association of Leasing Financial Service Companies Vs. UOI - 2010 (20) STR 417 (S.C.) 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and submits that even though specific ATM services were brought under service tax from 01.05.2006, for the earlier period, the services rendered by the appellants were rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd unfit notes, loading the cash into ATMs and ensuring that there is no cash out situation, taking necessary insurance, etc. ix. Providing connectivity of ATMs in the Companys switch at Chennai. The switch would be the controlling point and would enable monitoring the maintenance of the entire network in on-line, real time mode. x. Providing 24 hours held desk for trouble shooting. xi. Disaster Recovery Management 6. As seen from Clause (12) of the said agreement, for rendering the above services, the Bank shall pay to the appellant a Facility Charges per ATM per day. We find the appellants also entered into agreement with other banks where the ATMs are fully owned by Banks and they carry out only the maintenance of ATMs. They also entered into another type of agreement for providing inter connectivity between banks and another agreement where they render transaction processing service through their switching network. 7. In the present case, the adjudication authority demanded service tax under Clause (i) of Section 65 on Financial Leasing Services including equipment leasing plus hire purchase and clause and under clause (vii) provision and transfer of informat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same issue of Service Tax liability of ATM supplied was the subject matter in the Diebold case cited supra and very elaborate findings have been given by the Chennai Tribunal to show that the said services cannot be subjected to Service Tax for the period prior to 1-5-2006. Respectfully following the ratio of the above decisions, we do not find any merit in the impugned order. Hence, we allow the appeal with consequential relief. The above decision of the Tribunal squarely applicable to the present case and the very fact that the Govt. introduced specific and separate ATM Service in the finance Act and w.e.f. 01.05.2006 and no service tax is leviable for ATM services prior to 01.05.2006. 8. Further, we find that in the present case service tax demanded on the ATM Services provided by the appellants under BOF as Financial leasing services including equipment lease or under Transfer of information and data processing. We find on a similar issue, the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. GE India Industries (P) Ltd. (supra), dismissed the Revenue appeal. In the above case, the respondent provided an extrusion machine on lease to other company and received amount as user cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
