Banking and Financial Services Decided Case Laws

HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II
Service Tax: Banking and other Financial Services: Charges collected from credit card-holders on service through credit cards availed by them abroad: Pre-deposit The learned JCDR has relied on a stay order passed by a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Citybank N.A. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai 2009 wherein for a comparable period, it was held that recoveries made by Citybank from their credit card holders in respect of transactions done abroad were covered by “credit card service” galling clause (ii) of BOFS under Section 65(12) of the Act. HDFC has no financial hardships. In the result, there will be a direction to the appellant to pre-deposit the amount of Rs. 71 lakhs within four weeks.


Bank of India vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Ahmedabad
Service Tax: Banking and Financial Services: Pre-deposit: In view of the fact that there was no proposal in the show cause notice relating to suppression of facts or mis-declaration etc., the issue is required to be considered in detail at the time of final hearing. Appellants have been able to make out a prima facie case so as to waive the pre-deposit of service tax and penalty imposed. 


Syndicate Bank vs. CCE, Mangalore
Banking and other financial service: “Banking and other financial service” clearly indicate with regard to the asset management and also refers to depository and trust services but does not include cash management.
Management Consultancy Service: Merely providing expert employee as agent for working day to day affairs is not Management Consultancy.


Gondia District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Service Tax: Banking Services: Penalty: Once registered with the department for payment of service tax, they are expected to be aware of the relevant provisions of law. Had the appellant acted in terms of Rule 6 (1), as amended with effect from 1.4.2005, they would not have defaulted monthly payments of service tax. For the period April 2005 to March 2007, the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not admissible to the appellant. In other words, the decision of the lower appellate authority for avoiding such a penalty altogether cannot be accepted. As per Section 76, as it stood between 10.9.2004 and 18.4.2006, the maximum penalty, which could be imposed on an assessee in an appropriate case, was Rs 200/- per day of delay, the minimum being Rs 100/- per day of delay, from which it appears that, during the said period, the adjudicating authority had a discretion, which, in the present case, was not exercised. After 18.4.2006, the penalty could be not less than Rs 200/- per day of delay or 2% of the service tax per month, whichever was higher. Obviously, during this period, there is no discretion. There was no delay in payment of service tax for the period upto February 2005. Therefore, there can be no penalty on the assessee on the ground of delayed payment of service tax for such period. All these aspects are to be considered by the original authority. In order to enable that authority to do the needful the impugned order is set aside and this appeal allowed by way of remand.


The Financers  Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur - II
Banking & Financial Service: Service rendered by appellants to Bank as lending agent not covered by the category of Banking & Financial Services during the material period, same covered later on. Prima facie a strong case. Promotion of any service would be covered and it is not necessary that promotion should be of taxable service. Appellants put to terms. Stay partly granted. (To read complete text