2009 (5) TMI 382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ication, the adjudicating authority confirmed demand of service tax along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the said order. In the light of the decision of CCE v. Chadha Auto Agencies 2008 -TMI - 30029 - CESTAT BANGALORE, held that- there was nothing on the record to indicate that the assessee had been promoting the services provided by various financial institutions specifically, thus the impugned order was liable to set aside and appeal allowed.
T.K. JAYARAMAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajesh Kumar for the Appellant. Ms. Joy Kumari Chander for the Respondent. ORDER M.V. Ravindran, Judicial Member - This appeal is directed against OIA No. 184/06, dated 13-6-2006. 2. The relevant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e provide and not as a remuneration for any services. It is his submission that the learned 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 [2008] 17 STT 96 (Bang. - CESTAT) and CCE v. Chadha Auto Agencies [2008] 16 STT 77 (Bang. - CESTAT). 5. 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 value of sales .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se of Silicon Honda (supra) squarely covers the issue which is before us. "4. I have perused the impugned order and the grounds of appeal, nowhere in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) 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 so .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X