Case Law Details
CESTAT, MUMBAI BENCH
Union Bank of India
versus
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Mumbai
ORDER NOS. A/21-22/2013/CSTB/C-I
APPEAL NOS. ST/143 & 144 OF 2009
NOVEMBER 8, 2012
ORDER
Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member – Union Bank of India has filed an appeal against the impugned order wherein service tax demand has been confirmed against them under the category of ‘Banking & other financial services’ on the activity that they are providing service of payment and receiving money on behalf of the government in respect of various transactions such as public deposit, RBI bond, EPF, senior citizen saving scheme, compulsory deposit scheme etc. The revenue has also filed an appeal against impugned order for non-imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. As both appeals are arising from same order, therefore, both are being disposed of by a common order.
3.Shri B. Raichandani, ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that on the identical issue in the case of Canara Bank v. CST [2012] 36 STT 466 has held that such activity does not fall under the category of Banking and Financial service and the above activity is exempt from banking and financial services. As the issue has attained finality by the order of the Tribunal in Canara Bank (supra) therefore following the same, we hold that the appellant are not liable to pay service tax confirmed against them by way of impugned order and we set aside the demand of service tax. There is no imposition of penalty on the appellant.
4. In the result, appeal filed by the UBI is allowed with consequential relief. Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
