2006 (11) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-5-2005). The total period of dispute in these appeals is 16-8-2002 to 31-3-2005, for which the lower authority has demanded Service Tax of Rs. 2,68,68,830/- on the ground that the services rendered by them during the said period were in the nature of "Banking and other Financial Services" defined under Section 65(11) of the above Act. This provision reads as under :- 65 (11) "banking and other financial services" means, the following services provided by a banking company or a financial institution including a non-banking financial company of any other body corporate, namely :- (i)      financial leasing services including equipment leasing, and hire-purchase by a body corporate; (ii)   &nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n literature allegedly taken from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. However, it appears from the memoranda of appeals that no such literature has been cited by the appellants. There is a reference to the "Council of Chartered Accountants" in the appeal memoes, but this cannot be accepted as a reference to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Learned Counsel has also relied on a letter of the Government in support of her argument that "equipment leasing" is not a financial leasing service. But what is discernible from this letter is that 'financial leasing' includes equipment leasing and hire-purchase also. The subject matter of this letter seems to be only quantification of Service Tax. Hence this letter does not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants against the demand of Service Tax inasmuch as, apparently, the leasing of ATM fell within the definition of "banking and other financial services" given under Section 65(11) of the Finance Act, 1994 during the period of dispute. It is also pertinent to note that the appellants had applied for and obtained, on their own accord, registration from the department for the said services. It was only towards the end of the period of dispute that they applied for de-registration. Thus, for the period of dispute, the appellants were liable to pay tax to the exchequer in respect of the services for which they were registered with the department. Learned Counsel has pointed out, at this stage, that, if that be so, the appellants have a goo....