9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 30.04.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Salem upholding the Order-in-Original No. 93/2014-ST dated 23.12.2014 which confirmed the demand of ST & Cess of Rs.1,28,936/-along with applicable interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (ACT). 2. The issue involved in the present appeal relates to non-payment of service tax on bank charges paid to foreign banks under reverse charge for the period from July 2012 to March 2013. The Appellant, who are the manufacturers of whole egg powder, egg yolk powder and Albumen Powder have exported them to foreign countries and realised export proceeds less bank charges deducted by the foreign banks. It appeared to the Department that the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gaged by the buyer. ii. It was pointed out that the Appellant had filed periodical ST-3 returns and paid the tax and hence extended period is not applicable as held in the case of MP Water and Power Management Institute Vs. CCE [2009 (20) STT 79 (CESTAT)] and CCE Vs. Smt. Sona Sharma [(2009) 21 STT 271 (CESTAT- SMB)]. iii. It was submitted that no penalty was imposable as there was no intention to evade payment of duty on account of wilful suppression as held in the case of Tamilnadu Housing Board Vs. CCE [1994 (74) ELT 9 (SC)] and Indian Institute of Chemical Technology Vs. CCE [(2009) 26 VST 198 (CESTAT)]. The Appellant also sought for waiver of penalty in terms of Section 80 of the ACT. 4. The Ld. Counsel Ms. Nagasundari Shruti K. r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng other orders of co-ordinate CESTAT, New Delhi in the cases of M/s. Theme Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi [2019 (26) G.S.T.L. 104 (Tri.-Del.)] and M/s. Dileep Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2017 (10) TMI 1231 - CESTAT, New Delhi], has held as under: - "5.1 The main issue involved in this case is whether the amount which was deducted by the Foreign bank towards the bank charges are taxable under the service "Banking and other Financial Service" for the period 2006-2007 to 2010- 2011? The other issues involved are whether invocation of extended period and imposition of penalties are sustainable in the facts of the case? 5.2 We find that the appellants have submitted the documents f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods, they lodged their bills for collection to the Indian Bankers who in turn send the same to the foreign banks. The foreign banks while remitting the money to the Indian Bank, deduct their charges for collection of bills which in turn are charged by the Indian Banks from the appellants. When it is so, then the appellant are not entitled to pay the service tax. The identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Greenply Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur (Final Order No. 50149/2014 dated 03.01.2014) where it was observed that- "4. We find that no documents have been produced showing that foreign bank has charged any amount from the appellant directly. The facts as narrated in the impugned order clearly indicate that it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
