Foreign bank charges not subject to service tax under reverse charge mechanism Section 66A Rule 2(1)(2)(iv)

CESTAT Chennai ruled in favor of appellant regarding service tax liability on bank charges paid to foreign banks under reverse charge mechanism for July 2012 to March 2013. The Tribunal held that appellant cannot be treated as service recipient under Section 66A read with Rule 2(1)(2)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, therefore no service tax is chargeable. Decision was consistent with earlier ruling in same appellant's favor in similar matter. Appeal was allowed.

---

---

ISSUES:

1. Whether bank charges deducted by foreign banks from export proceeds are taxable under the service of "Banking and other Financial Services" on a reverse charge basis under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994?
2. Whether the extended period of limitation is invocable for recovery of service tax on such bank charges?
3. Whether penalty under Sections 76/78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is imposable in the absence of wilful suppression or intention to evade payment of service tax?

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

1. The bank charges deducted by foreign banks are not taxable on the appellant under "Banking and other Financial Services" as the appellant has no direct dealings with the foreign banks; the service is rendered to the intermediary Indian bank, and hence the appellant cannot be treated as the service recipient under Section 66A and Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.
2. Since the issue is decided on merits favoring the appellant, there is no need to consider the applicability of the extended period of limitation.
3. Penalty is not sustainable where there is no evidence of wilful suppression or intention to evade service tax, and waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 may be considered accordingly.

RATIONALE:

1. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions and precedents from coordinate benches, including rulings in cases involving similar facts where foreign banks' charges deducted while remitting export proceeds to Indian banks were held not taxable on the exporters as they were not the direct recipients of the banking services.
2. The legal framework applied includes Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, and Rules 2(1)(d) and 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, interpreted in light of established case law distinguishing between direct and indirect recipients of banking services for service tax liability.
3. The Tribunal followed the principle that the appellant cannot be treated as the service recipient where no direct contractual relationship or service receipt exists with the foreign bank, thus excluding the bank charges deducted by foreign banks from the appellant's service tax liability.
4. No dissent or doctrinal shift was noted; the decision adheres to consistent precedent emphasizing the necessity of direct receipt of service for taxability under reverse charge provisions.

---