TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Excise Chennai-II. So it is prayed that the Respondent's name may be changed to read as Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai as per the requirement under CESTAT Procedure Rules. Considering the facts, it is ordered that the name of the respondent in cause title in the appeal may be changed to read as Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai so that in all future proceedings the respondent's name is correctly mentioned. 2. The applicant is a Non-banking Financial Company and was registered for payment of service tax under the category of Banking and Financial services and also under Business Auxiliary Service. The applicant's customers who took loans from the applicant were giving post-dated cheques to the applicant and such cheques were d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arising from the impugned order for admission of appeal. 3. The main contention of the learned advocate for the applicant is that they were only collecting amounts charged by their bank from the customers whose cheques were returned. According to him, there is no service involved which is classifiable under Banking and Financial Service. Secondly, he argued that this is only reimbursement of expenses incurred by the applicant on behalf of the Customers and since Hon'ble Delhi High Court has struck down Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 in the case of Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI 2012-TIOL-966-HC-DEL, service tax demanded from the applicant is not legally maintainable. Further, he su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n who issued the cheque and also for recovery of the amount due and charges for such activity from its customers. The nature of the activity remains the same in the hands of the bank as well as in the hands of the applicant. So, according to him, this is taxable service in the hands of both bank and the applicant. 6. He points out that this is not a case where the applicant was recovering only the amounts charged by the banks concerned. He contests that in lower proceedings applicant could not establish such fact. 7. He further points out that in this particular case, the applicant has caused serious damage to the interest of Revenue by taking Cenvat credit on the bills received from the bank and at the same time ensuring that cost of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sustainable under the basic taxing provisions in Finance Act, 1994 like section 65, 67 and provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 even without the support of Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The adjudicating authority referred to Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 because that rule also covered the situation and it was not struck down at the time of adjudication. The fact that the Delhi High Court found some infirmity in the said Rule 5 cannot be reason to waive pre-deposit in this case. He points out that Delhi High Court has not examined a type of a case where the assessee takes credit of tax paid on a service but recovers the cost of the service separately from another person. Therefore....