TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant demanding service tax on these services and they paid the same under protest. A show cause notice was issued demanding the service tax on these services and proposing to appropriate the amount already paid by them towards the demand. It was also proposed to recover the interest under Sec.75 and impose penalties under Sec.76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. After following due process of law, the learned Commissioner confirmed the demands, appropriated the amounts already paid by them towards the demand. He also demanded interest and imposed penalties under Sec. 77 & 78. He refrained from imposing any penalty under Sec.78. Aggrieved, by this order the appellant filed this appeal on the following grounds: (1) The commission ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mber). He further submits that the larger bench of the Tribunal has decided the same matter in the case of State Bank of Patiala [2016 (10) TMI 800 (CESTAT-New Delhi)] in which it was held as follows: "7.4 On careful reading of above reproduced Section 45, it can be noticed that, RBI, under the direction of Central Government of India having regard to public interest, convenience of banking and other factors, can appoint a national bank or the State Bank to transact business as its agent at any place in India. Drawing power from this Section, RBI appoints various national banks/public sector banks for collection of various taxes and making payment of pension etc. This would mean that various national banks are agents of the RBI. 7.5 The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y RBI as agent under Section 45 of RBI Act. Applying the same analogy, in our view if RBI is exempted from the service tax liability in respect of various services, its agent for doing such services also needs to be extended the same benefit. 7.7 We may also look at the present controversy from another angle. State Bank of Patiala has been appointed by RBI as its agent under Section 45 of the RBI Act. RBI itself has been entrusted by the Central Government to transact Government business. Hence once State Bank of Patiala has been appointed as agent of RBI, it is transacting Government business which is in the nature of a sovereign function performed on behalf of the Government and hence not liable to Service Tax. 7.8 In our considered v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts in the case in hand. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the reference in favour of the respondent and hold that the law as laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank (supra) is correct exposition of law. Present appeal has no merit and dismissed." 3. He also relied on the case of Syndicate Bank [2018 (8) TMI 699] and State Bank of Hyderabad [2017 (2) TMI 1347]. He therefore argued that the demand may be set aside along with interest and penalty. 4. Learned departmental representative reiterates the Order-in-Original. 5. We have considered the arguments on both sides. Notification No. 22/2006-ST dated 31.05.2006 clearly exempts taxable services provided or to be provided by any person to the Reserve Ban....