TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... financial services . The appellant s organization functions under Board of trustees and under Section 3A of the Act it is a Body Corporate. Their responsibilities as evident from the submissions of the appellants themselves are nothing but funds management, for which they received service charges of @3% from the Coal Companies. Therefore, the appellant is squarely covered by the definition of Banking and Financial services and therefore, is liable to pay service tax under this Heading. Whether the appellants are performing services to the country? - HELD THAT:- Evidently, they are not performing any sovereign functions of the State. They are managing the some funds and performing some functions for the workers of Coal Companies and are getting paid for such services. These services rendered by the appellants, are not like the services of RTO of issuing driving license after charging a fees for the purpose or the State Drugs control who issues license for manufacture of pharmaceuticals after charging the requisite fees both of which are sovereign functions of the State. The appellant s functions are akin to the activities of other commercial organizations owned by the Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd none appeared. No application for adjournment has been received. As the case pertains to 2013, we take up the matter for hearing and decision on merit. 2. Ld. Special Counsel, Shri AK Das, appeared on behalf of the Respondent Department. 3. Heard the Ld. Special Counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 4. This appeal is filed against the impugned Order-in-Original No.08/ST/Commr./2013 dated 22.02.2013. On the basis of Audit Report from DAG (CRA), Office of PAG (Audit). Jharkhand, investigations were initiated by the officers of Central Excise and Service Tax, which culminated in the issuance of show-cause notice dated 21.11.2011 to the appellant. The appellant is a Body Corporate as per Section 3B of Coal Mines Provident Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 and manages the following funds: (i) Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme; (ii) Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme (merged with Pension Scheme in 1998); (iii) Coal Mines Pension Scheme; (iv) Coal Mines Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme. They collect these fund amount from Coal Companies and the Coal Mine Workers and invest them in various Banks and Securities so as to ensure a good return and pay pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (vi) In the case of CBFC, the Board vide Circular No.89/7/2006-ST dated 18.12.2006, clarified that the activities of that organization, do not constitute provision on taxable service. (vii) What they are collecting is only administration charge for rendering this service. (viii) Imposition of any tax on them would be contrary to public policy and therefore, perverse. (ix) They are neither a banking company nor a financial institute, nor a body corporate, nor a commercial concern, therefore, not covered by the definition of Banking and Financial Service . As the levy of service tax itself is contrary to law, the question of imposition of penalty does not arise. (x) Lastly, the notice is time barred and extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. 6. After considering the submissions made by the appellant, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand as proposed along with interest under Section 75 and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved, the present appeal is filed on the following grounds: (i) They are a statutory organization created under the Act. They are performing duties of Welfare State Mandatory by the Directive Principles of State Policy under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter of credit and bill of exchange, transfer of money including telegraphic transfer, mail transfer and electronic transfer, providing bank guarantee, overdraft facility, bill discounting facility, safe deposit locker, safe vaults, operation of bank accounts; He would submit that there is no doubt whatsoever that the appellant is performing asset management functions and managing the pension and provident fund of the coal mine workers. These are specifically covered under the above definition. The second point to be examined is whether the appellant is a Banking Company or Financial Institution or any other Body Corporate or Commercial concern. He would submit that the appellant s organization has been created under the provisions of The Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (CMPFMP Act) and is headed by Board of Trustees. In terms of Section 3B of the Act, they shall be a Body Corporate under the name specified in the notification and statutorily have a perpetual succession. Therefore, the argument that they are Body Corporate, is not only far from truth but contrary to the provisions to the very Act which created the appellant. He would therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Organization itself is a Body Corporate. Therefore, they are covered by the charging section. 11. On the appellant s claim that they are exempted under the Income Tax Act, he would submit that the exemption under I.T. Act, does not mean that there is also exemption from all other taxes. 12. On the question of invocation of extended period of limitation, he would submit that the appellant never came forward to take a registration on their own. It is only after repeated letters and reminders, they took a registration, but still failed to file service tax return or pay service tax. This shows that the appellant s intention is to evade payment of service tax because they considered themselves to be above the law laid down by the Parliament. 13. For the same reasons, he would submit that the imposition of penalties upon the appellant is fully justified. 14. We have considered the arguments of both sides and perused the records. We find a little force in the arguments of the appellant that they are not a Body Corporate, but a Government Department performing some functions because the very Act which created them and entrusted them with the power states that they are a Bod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar (supra), has ruled as under: 19. The well settled principle is that when the words in a statute are clear, plain and unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the Courts are bound to give effect to the said meaning irrespective of consequences. If the words in the statute are plain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary to expand those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words used declare the intention of the Legislature. In the Kanai Lal Sur vs. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, AIR 1957 SC 907, it was held that if the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. 20. In applying rule of plain meaning any hardship and inconvenience cannot be the basis to alter the meaning to the language employed by the legislation. This is especially so in fiscal statutes and penal statutes. Nevertheless, if the plain language results in absurdity, the Court is entitled to determine the meaning of the word in the context in which it is used keep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
