ORDER
T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. These appeals have been filed against Orders-in-Appeal No. 9 & 10/2006 – ST/TVM both dated 21.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin.
2. The appellant M/s. Kerala State Finance Enterprises Ltd. are rendering various types of financial services. As far as the present appeals are concerned, the period involved is from 12.9.2001 to 20.11.2004.
3. The learned Advocate Ms. H. Vani who appeared for the appellants stated that the appellants have already been registered with the Central Excise department for payment of Service Tax under the category of “Banking and Other Financial Services”. The present appeals relate to a particular financial service which is “lending”. The appellants lend money for various purposes such as purchase of commercial vehicle, etc. It was urged that “lending” was brought under the Service Tax net only with effect from 10.9.2004. My attention was drawn to the relevant amendment. Therefore, she argued that the appellants would be liable to pay the Service Tax on “lending” only with effect from 10.9.2004 and not period prior to that date. The learned advocate stated that the Adjudicating Authority has actually categorized the service rendered by the appellant as “hire purchase by a body corporate” which is indicated under Section 65(11) of the Finance Act, 1994 of “Banking & Other Financial Services” in Sl. No. 1 of the definition as it existed in 2001. In view of the misunderstanding of the category under which the said services would fall, the Adjudicating Authority has held that the appellant is liable to discharge the Service Tax for the disputed period. It was strongly argued by the learned advocate that hire purchase is entirely a different activity and the appellant is actually paying Service Tax for the hire purchase service rendered by them. The main difference between a lending, hire purchase and lease was highlighted by the learned advocate in the following tabular column.
Sl. No.
Description
Loan
Hire-purchase
Leasing
1
Ownership
Borrower is the owner
Financier is the owner
Lessor is the owner
2
Relationship
Lender-Borrower
Owner-Hirer
Lessor-Lessee
3.
Buyer
Borrower buys the equipment/vehicle
Owner purchases and supplies to the hirer
Lessor purchases and supplies to the lessee
4
Compensation
Interest
Hire charges
Lease rent
5
Depreciation
Claimed by borrower
Claimed by hirer
claimed by lessor
6
Repayment
Principal and interest are paid in installments
Hire charges paid in installments
Lease rent paid periodically
7
Insurance
At borrower’s cost
By owner
By Lessor
4. On a very careful consideration of the issue, I find that in the present case the services rendered by the appellant would fall under the category of lending which was introduced only with effect from 10.9.2004. The learned advocate fairly conceded that with effect from 10.9.2004, the appellants are liable to pay the Service Tax and they would be discharging their liability. In these circumstances, I set aside the demand in both impugned orders of amounts up to 10.9.2004. The amounts which are due with effect from 10.9.2004 have to be paid by the appellants. Appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)