Appeal allowed on penalties, 'mark-up' charges deemed taxable. Service not exported due to domestic transactions.

The appeal in the case was allowed to the extent of setting aside penalties imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the 'mark-up' charged by the appellant for transactions with overseas merchant establishments was deemed taxable under section 65(105)(zm) and section 65(105)(zzzw) of the Finance Act, 1994. The service was not considered exported as the transactions were found to have taken place within India, with billing and payment in domestic currency.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of the 'mark-up' charged by the appellant for transactions with overseas merchant establishments.
2. Applicability of section 65(105)(zm) and section 65(105)(zzzw) of Finance Act, 1994.
3. Determination of whether the service was exported and thus exempt from taxation.
4. Inclusion of recovery by the 'issuing bank' from the 'cardholder' within the scope of section 67 of Finance Act, 1994.
5. Relevance of receipt of payment in foreign exchange for qualifying as export of service.
6. Applicability of penalties under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxability of the 'mark-up' Charged:
The primary issue is whether the 'mark-up' charged by the appellant for transactions with overseas merchant establishments constitutes a taxable service under section 65(105)(zm) and section 65(105)(zzzw) of Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal noted that the 'mark-up' is not shown separately in the billing statement and is not part of the exchange rate for conversion. The 'mark-up' is considered a service provided by the appellant and is thus liable to tax.

2. Applicability of Section 65(105)(zm) and Section 65(105)(zzzw):
The Tribunal examined the scope of 'banking or financial services' and 'credit card services' as defined in the Finance Act, 1994. It was determined that the 'mark-up' charged by the issuing bank from the cardholder falls within the ambit of these sections. The Tribunal referenced the Standard Chartered Bank case to clarify that the transactions between the issuing bank and the cardholder are taxable.

3. Determination of Export of Service:
The appellant argued that the service was exported and thus exempt from taxation. However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the transactions were conducted outside India. The billing and payment occurred in India, and the 'rate of exchange' was applied domestically. The Tribunal concluded that the service was not exported as the cardholder was not located outside India during the transactions.

4. Inclusion of Recovery within Section 67:
The Tribunal addressed whether the recovery by the issuing bank from the cardholder, including the 'mark-up,' falls within the scope of section 67 of Finance Act, 1994. It was determined that the 'mark-up' represents consideration for a service and is therefore taxable.

5. Relevance of Receipt of Payment in Foreign Exchange:
The Tribunal considered various circulars and notifications to determine the relevance of receipt of payment in foreign exchange for qualifying as an export of service. It was concluded that the receipt of convertible foreign currency is a necessary condition for establishing the delivery of service outside the tax jurisdiction. The 'mark-up' charged by the appellant was neither received nor billed in convertible foreign currency, thus failing the criteria for export of service.

6. Applicability of Penalties:
The Tribunal found that the complexity of export rules and the lack of clear distinction for exports during the disputed period could lead to superficial interpretation by the assessee without intent to evade tax. The show cause notice and the impugned order lacked convincing evidence of suppression or misrepresentation. Consequently, the imposition of penalties under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994, was deemed inappropriate, and the penalties were set aside.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalties, but the 'mark-up' charged by the appellant was held to be taxable under the relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The service was not considered exported due to the lack of evidence of transactions conducted outside India and the absence of receipt in convertible foreign currency.

---