Mutual fund investments not exempted services under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 Rule 6(3), employee notice waiver not taxable service

CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal and set aside the demand for CENVAT credit reversal and service tax. The Tribunal held that mutual fund investments by the appellant cannot be considered exempted services under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as the appellant merely invests and earns profit shown as other income, not acting as a service provider. Additionally, amounts recovered from employees for waiver of notice period do not constitute taxable service, as compensation paid by employees to employers for resigning without requisite notice is not consideration for employment contract. Both demands with interest and penalty were rejected.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the amount of 6% or 7% on the differential value of mutual fund investment and realization under Rule 6(3)(i) of CCR, 2004 is payable as an exempted service.
2. Whether the amount recovered from employees in lieu of service period on leaving the employment is subject to Service Tax.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appeal challenged a demand based on the investment in mutual funds, considered by the Revenue as trading in goods, leading to a demand under Rule 6(3)(i) of CCR, 2004. The appellant argued that the investment in mutual funds did not constitute trading in goods and was not an exempted service. The Tribunal, citing various judgments, including Ace Creative Learning (P.) Ltd. and Ambuja Cement Ltd., held that the investment in mutual funds did not qualify as an exempted service or trading activity. The demand based on this count was deemed unsustainable, following established precedents.

Issue 2:
Regarding the recovery of charges from employees for not serving the notice period, the appellant contended that such recovery did not constitute a taxable service as per the employment contract. Citing XL Health Corporation India (P.) Ltd. case and other judgments, the Tribunal held that the recovery of charges in lieu of notice period did not amount to a taxable service. Relying on the principle established in prior cases, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for Service Tax on these charges could not be sustained. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

---