https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270975 The Tribunal classified services provided by SWIFT as "Banking and Other Financial Services" involving data processing. The appellant was held liable to pay service tax on a reverse charge basis under Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The argument of revenue neutrality was rejected due to the mixed nature of services provided by the appellant. The principle of mutuality was deemed inapplicable, and the demand for service tax post-April 18, 2006, was upheld. The demand for the period before April 18, 2006, was set aside, with the appeal partly allowed. en-us Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Oct 2016 11:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270975 The Tribunal classified services provided by SWIFT as "Banking and Other Financial Services" involving data processing. The appellant was held liable to pay service tax on a reverse charge basis under Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The argument of revenue neutrality was rejected due to the mixed nature of services provided by the appellant. The principle of mutuality was deemed inapplicable, and the demand for service tax post-April 18, 2006, was upheld. The demand for the period before April 18, 2006, was set aside, with the appeal partly allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270975