2014 (5) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax, issued show cause notice under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for the period 01.06.2002 to 30.04.2006 to show cause why the service tax amounting to Rs.2,63,42,711/- and education cess amounting to Rs.4,13,431/-, aggregating to Rs.2,67,56,142/- be not demanded under the provisions of Section 73 of the Act and why the penalty under Sections, 76, 77 and 78 of the Act may not be levied. The reply has been filed by the appellant and thereafter, by order dated 21.01.2009 the demand has been confirmed by Commissioner of Central Excise and penalty has also been levied under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed appeal no.578 of 2009, which has been partl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s that subsequent amendment w.e.f. 01.05.2006 inserting clause (zzzw) read with clause 33a specifically provided that credit card, debit card, charge card or other payment card service come within the definition of taxable service. It shows that prior to 01.05.2006 such receipt was not taxable and did not fall within the definition of taxable service. Tribunal has not accepted the plea of the appellant. Sri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the issue involved in the present case is relating to the taxability of the receipt as interchange fee received from acquiring bank for providing credit card facility. . Whether such service falls within the purview of "banking and other financial service....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Department and the same has neither been considered nor has been adjudicated. Therefore, these decisions can not be taken as precedent on the issue. The decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka High Court in the case of Commr. of S.T., Bangalore Vs. Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (I) Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has observed as follows: "Broadly the following disputes do not fall within the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 35(g) of the Act:- (a) Dispute relating to the service tax payable on any service/taxable service. (b) the value of the taxable service for the purposes of assessment ? (c) A dispute as to the classification of services. (d) Whether those services are covered by an exemption notification or not ? (e) Wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... purpose of assessment. It was accordingly observed:- "13. The order of the Additional Collector under appeal before CEGAT in the present case did not have any direct or proximate relation, for the purposes of assessment, either to the rate of duty applicable to the said goods or to the value thereof. All that the Additional Collector's order did was to confiscate the said goods allowing to the appellant the option of redeeming them upon payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-. That the appellant might avail of the option, pay the fine and clear the said goods, when questions as to the rate of duty and value for purposes of assessment might possibly arise, is far too remote a contingency to satisfy the test that is laid down." It may be mentio....