2019 (8) TMI 1523

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al No.210 of 2009. The department has filed the appeal against the dropping of the demand of Rs. 43,39,222/- and non-imposition of penalty under Section 76. 2. Both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 4. The facts in brief are that the appellant UCO Bank is engaged as a banking company carrying on its operation in India as well as abroad. The appellant in the course of its regular banking activities, is also engaged in carrying Government transactions on behalf of Reserved Bank of India (RBI). As per the Reserved Bank of India Act, 1934, the RBI has the statutory obligation to under-take the receipts and payments of the Central Government and to carry out the exchange ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Other Financial Services'. The show cause notice proposed a demand of Rs. 4,16,35,744/-. Subsequently the appellant has paid the Service Tax liability for the impugned period on cum-tax basis which work out to Rs. 3,72,96,300/- and thereafter deposited the same under protest on 05.05.2008 under intimation to the department about such payment. Payment has also been acknowledged in the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 3,72,96,300/- and dropped the demand amounting to Rs. 43,39,444/-. A penalty of equal amount has been imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. A penalty of Rs. 5,000/- is also imposed under section 77. The amount of Rs. 3,72,96,300/- as paid by the appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... India by Notification No. 22/2006-S.T. has given exemption from the payment of service tax of any taxable services provided to or by RBI either in India or under Reverse Charge Mechanism. In our view as the respondent-assessee is an agent of RBI, exemption granted by Notification No. 22/2006-S.T., needs to be extended to respondent. In our view the claim of the respondent from exemption of the service tax on the commission received for undertaking the activity of receiving various taxes on behalf of the Govt. of India, seems to be justified inasmuch as that the provisions of Section 45 of RBI Act categorically mandated for appointing national bank or a State Bank by the RBI for specified purposes as directed by Government; and the said Sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7.8 In our considered view the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank [2012-TIOL-790-CESTAT-AHM = 2012 (28) S.T.R. 369 (Tri.-Ahmd.)], has correctly interpreted Notification No. 22/2006-S.T. and is correct exposition of the law. In our view the said judgment does not require any reconsideration. 7.9 As regards the case law cited by the learned DR and reliance placed in the case of Malwa Industries Ltd. (supra), we find that in that case, the Apex Court was considering the situation of exemption by a notification from a countervailing duty. Learned Commissioner (AR) was relying upon this decision to canvass his point that exemption notification should be read literally and should be construed liberally once it is con....