Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Sale of Gold Coins Settled with Supplier: CESTAT Rules in favour of South Indian Bank [Read Order]

The tribunal observed that there is no service being rendered by the appellant to the supplier and instead the appellant sells the gold imported by him and after sales, the same is settled with the supplier based on the payment terms.

Sale of Gold Coins Settled with Supplier: CESTAT Rules in favour of South Indian Bank [Read Order]
X

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench, ruled in favour of the appellant, M/s. South Indian Bank, and held that there was neither consideration nor service in the present case as the appellant settled sales with supplier. Also Read:Aircraft Export IGST Refund Dispute: Karnataka HC Permits Withdrawal of Writ, Liberty Granted to Seek Refund...


The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench, ruled in favour of the appellant, M/s. South Indian Bank, and held that there was neither consideration nor service in the present case as the appellant settled sales with supplier.

The appellant was importing gold coins/bullions through their branch network and on sale of these gold coins, the appellant earned an income which was liable to service tax as per the Revenue. The Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant then approached the CESTAT.

The Chartered Accountant for the appellant submitted that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not fall under the category of service as there was a transfer of title of the goods. The Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the appellant fulfils the basic conditions of Clearing and Forwarding Agents and hence are liable to pay service tax.

The tribunal observed that there is no service being rendered by the appellant to the supplier and instead the appellant sells the gold imported by him and after sales, the same is settled with the supplier based on the payment terms. The two member bench also noted that no consideration is being received from the supplier.

Conclusively. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) allowed the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

M/s. South Indian Bank vs The Commissioner of Central Excise , 2026 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 300 , Service Tax Appeal No. 22368 of 2015 , 13 March 2026 , Shri S. Ananthan , Shri Maneesh Akhoury
M/s. South Indian Bank vs The Commissioner of Central Excise
CITATION :  2026 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 300Case Number :  Service Tax Appeal No. 22368 of 2015Date of Judgement :  13 March 2026Coram :  D.M. MISRA, R. BHAGYA DEVICounsel of Appellant :  Shri S. AnanthanCounsel Of Respondent :  Shri Maneesh Akhoury
Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019