TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 522
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emand proposed in the four show cause notices dated 30.09.2010, 15.10.2012, 23.05.2014 and 17.04.2015 with interest and penalties. 2. The period involved in the show cause notice dated 30.09.2010 is from 2009-2010; the show cause notice dated 15.10.2012 is from 2011-2012; the show cause notice dated 23.04.2014 is from 2012-2013, and the show cause notice dated 17.04.2015 is from 2013-2014. The taxable category mentioned in the show cause notice for the period 01.04.2009 to 30.06.2012 is 'banking and other financial services' defined under section 65(105)(22k) of the Finance Act, 1994 [the Finance Act]. For the period commencing 01.07.2012 up to 31.03.2014 service tax has been proposed under section 65B(44) read with section 66B of the Fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Provident Fund, Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme and Employees Pension Scheme. The Department also alleged that in lieu of providing the said services, the appellant received income under the aforesaid heads from the employers, which would be taxable under the category of 'banking and other financial services' for the period upto 30.06.2012 and leviable to service tax in terms of the provisions of section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 [the Finance Act] read with section 66B of the Finance Act for the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2014. Accordingly, four show cause notices were issued to the appellant demanding service tax under section 73(1) of the Finance Act with interest and penalties. 7. The appellant filed a detailed r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been assailed this appeal deserves to be set aside. 11. Shri Rajeev Kapoor, the learned authorized representative appearing for the department has, however, supported the impugned order. 12. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the department have been considered. 13. In the case of the appellant for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2009, the order dated 01.07.2010 passed by the Commissioner was assailed by the appellant before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by order dated 13.04.2017, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and allowed the appeal. The relevant portions of the order passed by the Tribunal are reproduced below:- "1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority, is fund which is managed by the appellant is to the benefit of employees whose welfare is entrusted to the appellant, by law. The employers do not get any benefit out of such fund management. The administrative charges and other charges paid by the employers, therefore cannot be attributed to any service received by them from the appellant. As already noted, the employers have no choice and are compulsorily mandated by law to contribute to the fund and also pay the administrative charges/inspection charges etc. in terms of the EPMF & MP Act. The employees who ultimately benefit, have not paid any consideration to the appellant. They only contributed their part of fund, through the employer, to the appellant. They contribution to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he law. The considerations sought to be taxed are statutorily fixed, mandated fees and charges. No option exists with the appellant or contributor to vary such 'Fees' or 'charges. As such, we find no taxable element in such transaction. This conclusion is supported by Board's clarification dated 18/12/2006 (supra). The impugned orders are without merit and are not legally sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the same and allow the appeals filed by the appellant." 14. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, with which we have no reason to disagree, the demand confirmed for the period from 01.04.2009 to 30.06.2012 deserves to be set aside. 15. For the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2014, the Commissioner, S....