9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 2,12,08,03,074/- along with demand of Education cess, and penalties under sections 76 and section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 was confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The department alleged that the appellant is engaged in providing taxable services viz., Banking and other financial services and were not registered with the Service Tax department. Based on investigations, Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2009 for Rs.4,61,60,87,786/- was served to the appellant by the officers of DGGI for the period 2004-05 to 2007-08. Thereafter, subsequent show cause notices were issued for the periods 2008-09 and 2009-10. The current appeal is against the notice DL-II/ST/R-XX/SCN/EPFO/45/2009 dated 24.10.2011 for the period 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Learned Authorised Representative. We note that as submitted, the issue is no longer res-integra, as identical issue for the earlier periods in respect of the appellant has been decided by this Tribunal, in favour of the appellant vide Final Order Nos. 52858-52859/2017 dated 13.04.2017 and 50644/2023 date 08.05.2023. The relevant paragraphs of the Final order dated May, 08, 2023 are reproduced hereinafter: "13. In the case of the appellant for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2009, the order dated 01.07.2010 passed by the Commissioner was assailed by the appellant before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by order dated 13.04.2017, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and allowed the appeal. The relevant portions of the order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aspect, missed by the Original Authority, is fund which is managed by the appellant is to the benefit of employees whose welfare is entrusted to the appellant, by law. The employers do not get any benefit out of such fund management. The administrative charges and other charges paid by the employers, therefore cannot be attributed to any service received by them from the appellant. As already noted, the employers have no choice and are compulsorily mandated by law to contribute to the fund and also pay the administrative charges/inspection charges etc. in terms of the EPMF & MP Act. The employees who ultimately benefit, have not paid any consideration to the appellant. They only contributed their part of fund, through the employer, to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vely enforceable by the law. The considerations sought to be taxed are statutorily fixed, mandated fees and charges. No option exists with the appellant or contributor to vary such 'Fees' or 'charges. As such, we find no taxable element in such transaction. This conclusion is supported by Board's clarification dated 18/12/2006 (supra). The impugned orders are without merit and are not legally sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the same and allow the appeals filed by the appellant." 14. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, with which we have no reason to disagree, the demand confirmed for the period from 01.04.2009 to 30.06.2012 deserves to be set aside. 15. For the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
