9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the relevant period was not a taxable service. Even if it is held that the appellant is giving money under the “Hire Purchase Scheme”. Hence the impugned order is set aside. We allow the appeal with consequential relief.” - ST/94/2008 - 1452/2009 - Dated:- 17-11-2009 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri Veeramani , C.A. , for the Appellant. Shri U. Raja Ram, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per: M.V. Ravindran, Member (J). - This appeal is filed against the order-in-revision No. 10/2007/ST dated 5-12-2007. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that on verification the records of the appellant/assessee, it was found that the assessee has been invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application from borrower hypothecation agreement with the borrower and copy of RC book of vehicle financed are already filed along with the paper book. The department issued show cause notice No. 38/2005, dated 30-6-2005 proposing to bring to tax the interest received on money lent for the period from 1-8-2003 to 30-9-2004, the appellant argued before the adjudicating authority that the activity carried on by the appellant was not hire purchase finance as alleged in the Show cause notice, but lending activity which became taxable only from 10-9-2004. The adjudicating authority after hearing the appellant and going through the documents produced, passed order in "original 229/05 dated 13-12-2005 dropping all proceedings. The adjudicating au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable service on account of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression facts or contravention of any provision with an intent to evade payment of tax. In the instant case, the demand is raised on account of a difference in interpretation of the nature of the service by the Commissioner than the view taken by the adjudicating authority. Further appellant's view has the support of a decision this Hon'ble Bench of the Tribunal, since none of the conditions u/s 78 apply to this case the levy of penalty u/s 78 is not justified. (f) In view of above arguments, the Hon'ble Tribunal kindly allow the appeal and cancel the demands including interest and penalty. 3.2 He would also submit that the issue is now squarely covered by the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Baja) Auto Finance - 2007 (7) S.T.R. 423 (Tri.-Mumbai) has clearly drawn a distinction between Hire Purchase Service which is taxable and Hire Purchase Finance Service which is not a taxable service. In any case, it is very clear that the appellants have not rendered the services of Hire Purchase, They only lent money to the borrowers, Therefore they cannot be brought under the category of taxable services under banking and financial services. In view of the above we do not find any merit in the impugned order. Consequently the appellants are not liable to pay the tax demanded and hence no penalties also can be levied on them. Hence the impugned order is set aside. We allow the appeal with consequential relief." 6. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
