TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ATM do not fall within the bank and other financial services prior to 1.5.2006 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/27/2008 - Final Order No. 41666 / 2017 - Dated:- 16-8-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Ms. Minchu Mariam Punnose, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellants are engaged in marketing of Automatic Teller Machines (ATM). They are registered with the Service Tax Department and paying service tax on the annual maintenance contract charges (AMC) collected. Besides rendering such services, they are also leasing the ATMs to banks and are collecting leasing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant and not transferred to the customer bank. Further, the lease by the appellant to the customer bank for limited operation of ATM by customers, the same cannot be regarded as a financial leasing. The Board vide Circular dated 9.7.2001 has clarified regarding financial leasing including equipment leasing and hire purchase. The activity of the appellant for raising the leasing rentals would not fall within such clarification issued by the Board and therefore the appellant is not liable to pay service tax. She also relied upon the judgment in the case of India Switch Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai 2015 (39) STR 288 to contend that ATM related services have become taxable with effect from 1.5.2006 only and the leas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd data processing under the BOF services category. We find that this issue of ATM Services has been disputed and each Commissionerate demanded service tax under BAS or BOF, etc. This Tribunal already discussed the identical issue in detail in the case of M/s. Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. v. CST, Chennai - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 546 (Tri.-Chen.) allowed the appeals. Similarly, the Tribunal Bangalore Bench in the case of NCR Corporation India Ltd. (supra) also held that no service tax chargeable prior to 1-5-2006. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under:- 6. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the issue involved is the liability of Service Tax on the supply of ATM to the clients during the relevant p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently followed by the Tribunal in several decisions, which have been quoted by the learned Chartered Accountant. Moreover, the 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
