Page 37 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

2020 ] COURT-ROOM HIGHLIGHTS J133
3. Mr. Adik, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives
service.
4. To be heard along with Central Excise Appeal No. 48 of 2019.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had relied upon the deci-
sions in the case of UCO Bank v. Commissioner [2014 (36) S.T.R. 1169 (Tri. - Kol.)]
and HDFC Bank [Final Order No. A/87114/2018, dated 16-7-2018] and held that
the services rendered by the bank in advancing loans are exempt from Service
Tax and the amount of interest earned by bank in advancing such loans is to be
taken into consideration while determining the amount to be reversed in terms of
Rule 6(3A)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
The Tribunal had further held that in view of the decision rendered in
the case of Axis Bank [2017 (1) TMI 607 CESTAT Mumbai], the activity of supply-
ing manpower to subsidiary company which has reimbursed wages/salary paid
to such employees, is not taxable.
The Tribunal had also held that in view of the Supreme Court decision in
Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrat Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (10)
G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.)], reimbursable expenses are not includible while calculating
tax payable on the Director’s sitting fee.
The Tribunal had also held that the plea that the suppression of facts
could not be alleged against the Public Sector Undertaking so as to invoke the
extended period of limitation for raising tax demand, was not acceptable inas-
much as such an issue depends upon the facts of the each case.
The Tribunal had also held that since the tax amount with interest paid
before issue of show cause notice, penalty imposed under Section 78 of Finance
Act, 1994 was liable to be reduced to 25% of tax amount confirmed.
The Tribunal had further held that the action of the Commissioner in is-
suing corrigendum to show cause notice for the purpose of restricting the de-
mand within 5 year though the original show cause notice had proposed de-
mand beyond 5 years, had not resulted in any serious violation of the provisions
of the law inasmuch as raising the demand beyond 5 years was without authori-
ty of law and moreover, he had effectively made only arithmetical corrections
and reworked duty for the period which was within 5 years of period of limita-
tion.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. Prasad Paranjape i/b PDS Legal, for the
Appellant.
Mr. Karan Adik with Ms. Maya Majumdar, for the
Respondent.

Consulting Engineer service — Agency fee received for
providing technical assistance, expertise in manage-
ment and supervision of Road Construction Project
under PMGSY, whether taxable?
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari on 13-12-2019 after condoning the delay
admitted the Civil Appeal Diary No. 40985 of 2017 filed by Ircon International
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  133