South Indian Bank Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)
The appeal was filed against an order confirming service tax demand of ₹1,56,46,660 along with interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The dispute concerned whether the appellant was providing “Consignment Agent services” in relation to import and sale of gold coins during the period September 2011 to March 2014.
The Revenue alleged that the appellant imported gold coins on a consignment basis and earned income from their sale, thereby rendering services classifiable as “Clearing and Forwarding Agent” services and liable to service tax. It was also contended that the difference between sale value and cost constituted consideration for such services, and suppression of facts justified invocation of the extended limitation period.
The appellant argued that it was engaged in purchase and sale of gold coins on its own account and not acting as a consignment agent. It submitted that, unlike a consignment agent, it did not act as an intermediary between buyer and seller, but independently sold the goods. It further contended that the activity amounted to trading of goods involving transfer of title, which does not constitute “service,” particularly under Section 65B(44) post-2012. The appellant also challenged the invocation of extended limitation, stating that there was no suppression or misrepresentation.
