2013 (2) TMI 537

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../603 of 2011 the department is in appeal for non imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.   3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. State Bank of India is providing taxable services falling under the category of Banking and Other Financial Services and registered with the department. On the basis of the intelligence gathered by the officers of Director General. Central Excise Intelligence, it was revealed that State Bank of India provided taxable services in relation to operation of accounts of the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) classifiable under Banking and other financial services. However, State Bank of India did not make any paym....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Central Government for collecting and making payments towards Employees Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance. It is his submission that the said amounts which were collected by the appellant is a statutory function, which has been given to them by virtue of the provisions of Reserve Bank of India Act. It is his submission that having done the statutory function, any amount received as commission, is not taxable in the hands of the appellant, as had this action been conducted by the RBI itself, than there would not have been any levy of service tax liability. It is his submission that this ratio has been laid down by this Bench in the case of Canara Bank vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore, reported as 2012(28) STR 369. H....