2016 (5) TMI 375 - AT - Service Tax

ATM Service Tax Liability Decision: Penalties Dismissed, Main Appeal Partially Allowed

M/s Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai

M/s Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai - [2017] 97 VST 203 (CESTAT) Issues:1. Taxability of services rendered in relation to Automated Teller Machines.2. Service Tax liability under Goods Transport Agency.3. Imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:Issue 1: Taxability of services rendered in relation to Automated Teller MachinesThe case involved a dispute regarding the taxability of services provided by the appellant in relation to Automated Teller Machines (ATM). The Revenue authorities contended that these services fell under Maintenance & Repair Services and Business Auxiliary Services, thus attracting Service Tax liability. The appellant argued against the demand, citing the introduction of Service Tax liability for ATM services from 01.05.2006. The Tribunal examined Section 65(9a) & (9b) of the Finance Act, 1994, which clarified the taxability of services related to ATMs. Referring to precedents and the specific definitions provided, the Tribunal concluded that services rendered for ATMs were taxable only from 01.05.2006. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Service Tax liability along with interest imposed on the appellant for the period before 01.05.2006.Issue 2: Service Tax liability under Goods Transport AgencyThe Tribunal also considered the Service Tax liability under the Goods Transport Agency for the movement of ATMs. Upon reviewing the agreements between the appellant and service providers, it was determined that the appellant had indeed provided services related to the movement of goods, specifically ATMs, during the relevant period. The Tribunal found that the appellant's services fell under the category of Goods Transport Agency Services, thereby upholding the Service Tax liability along with interest in this regard.Issue 3: Imposition of penaltiesRegarding the imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal ruled that since the demand for Service Tax liability concerning ATMs was set aside, there was no justification for imposing penalties related to the Goods Transport Agency services. As the main appellant's appeal was partially allowed on merits and penalties were set aside, the Revenue's appeal to enhance penalties under Section 76 was dismissed. Consequently, the cross objection filed by the main appellant was also disposed of accordingly.In conclusion, the Tribunal resolved the issues by clarifying the taxability of services provided for ATMs, confirming the Service Tax liability under the Goods Transport Agency, and addressing the imposition of penalties under the Finance Act, 1994.