Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 7 June, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
COURT NO. II
Date of Hearing : 7.6.2011
Service Tax Appeal No. 368 of 2007
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 33(GRM)ST/JPR-I/2007 dated 14.2.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur-I]
Coram:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance:
Appeared for Appellant : Shri Vasudevan, Advocate
Appeared for Respondent : Shri Amrish Jain, DR
Coram:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member
Order No.dated.
Per D.N. Panda :
At the time of passing of an interim order on 25.5.2009, the Tribunal has observed that service tax on the profit earned on Foreign Exchange is not exigible by Finance Act, 1994. It was also noticed that looking to the provision of law applied by ld. Appellate Authority below i.e., Section 65(105)(zm) and 65(105)(zzk), the Bench was of the view that the Appellant-banker was not liable to Service Tax on the profit earned from Foreign Exchange deal.
2. Today, when the matter is heard, there is nothing improvement on the argument by Revenue to show from the statutory provision by Finance Act, 1994 whether anyway that Act intends to tax profits arising out of dealing in foreign exchange in terms of the taxable entry relating to the period 16.7.01 to 31.3.2006. On the other hand, the Appellant reiterates the same stand that was made in interim stage. According to the Appellant when law does not permit the profit to be taxed under Service Tax law and the respective circular that what was quoted at the interim stage still takes care of case of the Appellant, the Appellant should succeed in Appeal.
3. Ld. DR for Revenue has contention that any amount received in dealing Foreign Exchange shall be subject matter of tax under Finance Act, 1994 that being a receipt from banking and other financial services.
4. We have examined thoroughly the taxable entry as stated aforesaid which brought service provided to the customer by a banking company or a financial institution including a non-banking company. We have also examined the meaning of term banking and other financial services. We are unable to find intention of legislature to tax the profit earned out of dealing in foreign exchange. What that is necessity of Finance Act, 1994 is that the gross value received providing taxable service is intended to be taxed under that law. Finding no scope to bring profit to the ambit of tax under Finance Act, 1994, the Appeal is allowed.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (D.N. Panda) Member (Judicial) (Mathew John) Member (Technical) RM