9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns available and directing them to the financial institutions - the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Silicon Honda v. CCE, Bangalore, [2007 - TMI - 1555 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - impugned order upholding demand and peanlty is liable to be set aside - ST/258/2007 - 940/2009 - Dated:- 13-5-2009 - S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) and M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Shri Rajesh Kumar , C.A. , for the Appellant. Ms. Joy Kumari Chander, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)].- This appeal is directed against OIA No. 184/06, dated 13-6-06. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are as follows: The appellant are authorized dealers for Hero Honda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected this contention of the appellant on the ground that they have not produced any evidence. Learned Chartered Accountant would submit that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Silicon Honda v. CCE, Bangalore, 2007 (7) S.T.R. 475 (Tri.-Bang.) and CCE, Belgaum v. Chadha Auto Agencies, 2008 (11) S.T.R. 643 (Tri. - Bang.). 4. Learned JCDR on the other hand would submit that there is no evidence adduced by the appellant to consider the amount received by him as rent. It is her submission that the amount is paid to the appellant by the said financial institution on the basis of the net volume of sales i.e. the loan dispersed by the financial intuitions which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is before us. "I have perused the impugned order and the grounds of appeal, nowhere in the impugned order the Commissioner (A) has not referred to any evidence of financial institutions giving commission to the appellants for providing loan to their customers, who are brought through the appellants. The appellants have denied having promoted the business of financial institutions. They have stated that they are paid by the financial institutions for occupying the table space at the appellants' premises. This portion of the evidence is not contradicted. Therefore, mere fact of financial institutions being provided with space by the appellant and the appellant receiving some money for that lease of table space cannot be brought within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
