2015 (9) TMI 213 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary service - Receipt of commission from various financial institutions for rendering services of collecting, bringing and forwarding the loaners to the banks and also verifying their forms - eligibility of Notification No. 13/03-ST and Notification No.24/04-ST - Held that - Commissioner has correctly come to the conclusion that the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification No. 13/03-ST as he is not a Commissioner agent. We notice from the impugned order that the Commissioner has not held the appellant as commission agent. Secondly, as regards the Notification No. 24/04, the claim of the appellant is that they are providing services on behalf of the clients seems to be incorrect, inasmuch as the appellant is providing services to their clients i.e. financial institutions, hence the Commissioner has correctly denied claim. Since the issue is covered in appellants own case against him, we do not find any merit in the appeal, accordingly the appeal is rejected as devoid of merits. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Taxability of commission received for services provided to financial institutions under Notification No. 13/03-ST and Notification No. 24/04-ST.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Taxability of Commission Received

The appeal in question was filed against an order-in-revision by the Commissioner under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The central issue revolved around the taxability of the commission received by the appellant for providing services to financial institutions, including collecting, bringing, and forwarding loaners to banks, as well as verifying forms. The adjudicating authority had initially dropped proceedings, but the Commissioner, through show-cause notices, reversed this decision.

Issue 2: Eligibility for Exemption Notifications

The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 13/03-ST and Notification No. 24/04-ST. However, the Commissioner found that the appellant did not qualify as a commission agent under Notification No. 13/03-ST. Additionally, the claim that the appellant was providing services on behalf of clients under Notification No. 24/04-ST was deemed incorrect since the services were rendered to financial institutions directly, not on behalf of clients. The Tribunal referred to a previous order in the appellant's case, which supported the Commissioner's decision.

Decision

After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal rejected the appeal for multiple reasons. Firstly, the Commissioner correctly determined that the appellant did not qualify for benefits under Notification No. 13/03-ST as a commission agent. Secondly, the claim under Notification No. 24/04 was denied as the appellant provided services directly to financial institutions, not on behalf of clients. The Tribunal found the arguments raised by the DR to be persuasive, especially given the precedent set in a previous order related to the same issue in the appellant's case. As the issue had already been decided against the appellant in a prior judgment, the appeal was deemed devoid of merit and rejected.

This detailed analysis highlights the core issues of taxability, eligibility for exemption notifications, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretations of relevant provisions and precedents in the case.