TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erabad-III Commissionerate for payment of service tax in respect of merchant banking services. The Director General of Central Excise Intelligence conducted investigation and found that the appellant has been rendering services and receiving amounts in respect of the following: (i) Collection of taxes on behalf of Central Government & Government of State. (ii) Sale of Government of India Bonds. (iii) Sale of mutual fund units of SBI. (iv) Sale of credit cards of SBI. 2. After collecting necessary details from the appellant and investigating the matter a show cause notice dated 03.03.2008 was issued to the appellant covering the period 01.07.2003 to 09.09.2004 demanding service tax under the head 'business auxiliary services' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emand on the appellant bank without jurisdiction. (e) The sale of mutual fund units and Government of India Bonds during the relevant period was exempt from tax under Notification No. 13/2003 dated 20.06.2003. These mutual funds and Government of India Bonds are goods and the commission received on sale of goods was exempted vide the aforesaid notification. (f) Services rendered in relation to sale of credit cards are taxable only w.e.f. 01.05.2006. (g) Learned Commissioner erred in calculating service tax on total amount received which must be taken as inclusive of service tax amount. The penalties have been wrongly imposed by the learned Commissioner. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that they are contesting the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission received from SBI for such sale. d. Sale of mutual funds of SBI and the commission received for such sale from SBI. 2) Whether extended period of limitation is invokable in this regard. 3) Whether the appellant has been issued show cause notice without jurisdiction as the head office of the appellant banking company had not rendered the services but their branches did. 4) Whether interest is recoverable and penalty is imposable under Sec. 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 7. Coming to the question of jurisdiction in issuing the show cause notice, we find that the assessee opted for centralized registration for some other services and has been discharging service tax accordingly. As far as the alleged four ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Limited has categorically held that services provided by banks for collection of telephone bills, insurance premium on behalf of the client companies have to be considered as cash management service and cannot be considered under the category of business auxiliary services. On the face of such a categorical law being pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court, we find that the impugned order is correct on this point. 10. As regards the amount of commission received on money transfer, it is for the period from July 2003 to 09.09.2004 and we find that the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of Federal Bank Limited would squarely cover the issues in favour of the respondent and is also the judgment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, evaluation of prospective customer and public relation services and includes services as a commission agent but does not include technology service". In order to appreciate the scope of this clause we need to refer to clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) as this clause relates to activities incidental or auxiliary to above three. Clause (i) deals with promoting or marketing of sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to a client. Clause (ii) deals with promoting or marketing of service provided by a client. Clause (iii) deals with any customer care services provided on behalf of the client. In this case the appellant is receiving commission from either Central Government or from the State Government and hence it is not unreasonable to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or affinity cards or co-branded cards. Prior to 01.05.2006 credit card services were not so comprehensively covered. The Hon'ble Larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Ltd and others [2015 (8) TMI 686 (CESTAT-Delhi (LB))] held that the comprehensive definition of the credit card services w.e.f. 01.05.2006 do not automatically apply to the credit card services when they were rendered as a part of "the banking and other financial services". We, therefore, find that the credit card services rendered by the appellant by selling and promoting the credit card issued by their parent company viz., SBI and the commission received by them for this service fall under the definition of credit card services w.e.f. 01.05.2006. Pri....