Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai I on 14 June, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Application No. ST/MA/ORS/1149/12 in Appeal No. ST/280/09
AND
Appeal No. ST/280/09
(Arising out Order-in-Original No. 02/KLG/Th-II/2009 dated 28.7.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
HDFC Bank Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of service tax, Mumbai I
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate for the appellant Shri V.K. Agarwal, (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 14.06.2012 Date of decision : 14.06.2012 O R D E R No:..
Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant are in appeal against the impugned order confirming the impugned demands under the category of Banking and Financial Services. The appellant has also moved an application for bringing additional grounds on record.
2. Heard both sides.
3. After hearing both sides, we find that the applicant has proposed to take the additional grounds which are reproduced as under:-
(14A) Taxable from 16.5.2008:
Currency conversion charges/Markup charges is only for sustaining the loss on sale of currency to card holder when he is overseas, due to fluctuating in the exchange rate. Therefore the same would be covered under the head Banking and Other Financial Services which has been inserted from 16.5.2008. (14B) Since export of service, not liable to service tax:
1. As per the provisions contained under Export of Service Rules, 2005, w.e.f. 15.3.2005 and for the period prior thereto, the service provided outside India was treated as export and there was no requirement of receipt for value of service in convertible foreign exchange.
2. In the instant case, the card holder, during the concerned period, was outside India and using the card for purchasing goods/service from overseas establishment and hence, service was provided and used outside India. The amount realised by the appellant from cardholder is for such services provided and used outside India and hence quality as export of service.
In view of the above, the same would be treated as export of service.
(14C) During the disputed period, various banks, similarly circumstanced, were not paying service tax and hence, demand notices were issued by DGCEI to various banks and hence, it cannot be said that the applicants alone suppressed any information. Therefore, the finding/allegations that the appellants have suppressed the facts would not be correct as there is no conscious or deliberate withholding of any information as it was industry practice.
4. Considering the fact that the grounds taken by the appellant are legal one, same are taken on record.
5. We further find that these grounds were not contested by the appellant before the adjudicating authority. Therefore, we are of the opinion that matter should go back to the adjudicating authority to consider the issue afresh in the light of the additional grounds taken by the appellant before us. Accordingly, we remand matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication keeping all issues open.
6. Appeal and the miscellaneous application are disposed of in the above manner. (Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) SR 4