TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause notice (SCN) was issued on 12.04.2016 and a demand of Rs. 4,82,23,102/- along with interest and penalties was confirmed for the period October 2010 to December 2015. 2. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category of 'credit card, debit card and other payment card services' / 'business auxiliary services' as per section 65(33a) read with section 65(105) (zzw) / section 65(19) read with Section 65(105)(zzb) for the period up to 30.06.2012 and under 'services' as per section 65B(44) read with section 65B(49) other than negative list of services for the period after 01.07.2012. 3. The brief facts are the Appellant is engaged in the business ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....curing card customers for and on behalf of the bank and to submit application on behalf of customer to the bank for issue of the card. As per the agreement, appellant was barred from collecting any money directly from the customers and was paid consideration in the form of commission on the business turnover. Thus, the appellant had acted as direct selling agent of HDFC limited and the said activity in question was classifiable under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' under section 65(19) read with 65(105)(zzb) during the period till 30.06.2012 and not under the category as defined under 'Credit card, Debit card and other payment card service' as per section 65(33a) read with section 65(105)(zzw) of the Finance Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. As regards demand confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation and penalty, learned counsel submits that in the absence of any willful suppression of fact, invoking the extended period of limitation is unsustainable. The Learned Counsel further submits that as directed by the HDFC Bank, appellant had obtained Service Tax Registration from April 2010 and as per the statement recorded from the appellant on 15.03.2016, appellant had disclosed the fact regarding registration. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant was not aware of Service Tax implication on the activities undertaken by them and neither charged nor collected Service Tax from the customers such as HDFC Bank. Fact being so, alleging that the appellant had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Money Ltd. and they are eligible to claim credit of such service tax. Thus, the demand for the period i.e. October 2010 to September 2014 is also liable to be set aside on the ground of limitation. 8. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order and also draws our attention to the definition of the service under Section 65(33a) and taxable service under 65(105) (zzzw) which reads as 'to any person, by any person, in relation to credit card, debit card, charge card or other payment card service, in any manner'. Learned AR further submits that the commission income has been rightly held to be liable to service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service' (BAS). The adjudica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paid consideration in the form of commission from HDFC Ltd., on the business turnover. Thus, the appellant had acted as direct selling agent of HDFC Ltd., and the said activity in question was classifiable under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' during the period till 30.06.2012. However, for the period from October 2012 to December 2015, it was the responsibility of the appellant to pay due amount and HDFC Bank can only claim credit of such amount. Thus, even if it is a revenue neutral situation, appellant is liable for payment of service tax. As regards service tax demand for the services provided to Aditya Birla Money Ltd., and Aditya Birla Commodities Ltd., we find that it is in the nature of Mutual Fund agent service....