Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
CESTAT held that foreclosure charges collected by appellants on premature loan termination and seizure charges for vehicle release following loan default do not constitute taxable services under Banking and Financial Services category. The tribunal distinguished these penalty charges from core banking services, noting they are collected as penalties for non-performance of contractual clauses rather than for provision of taxable services. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Bhayana Builders and CESTAT Larger Bench decision in Repco Home Finance, the tribunal concluded such charges cannot form part of gross taxable value under Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994. The impugned order demanding service tax on these charges was set aside and appeal allowed.
CESTAT held that foreclosure charges collected by appellants on premature loan termination and seizure charges for vehicle release following loan default do not constitute taxable services under Banking and Financial Services category. The tribunal distinguished these penalty charges from core banking services, noting they are collected as penalties for non-performance of contractual clauses rather than for provision of taxable services. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Bhayana Builders and CESTAT Larger Bench decision in Repco Home Finance, the tribunal concluded such charges cannot form part of gross taxable value under Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994. The impugned order demanding service tax on these charges was set aside and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
