9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent brought it to the fold of law - Revenue Appeal allowed. - ST/777 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2011 - Shri D.N. Panda, Shri Mathew John, JJ. Appearance: Appeared for Appellant : Shri Fateh Singh, SDR Appeared for Respondent : Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate Per D.N. Panda : Revenue came in Appeal being aggrieved by the first Appellate order holding that refund is admissible to the Respondent. Facts on record throws light that the Respondent was engaged by ICICI Bank Ltd. for sourcing customers to avail housing finance from ICICI, HFC. Revenue found that the Appellant was remunerated by ICICI, HFC in pursuance of the terms of understanding between the bank and the Respondent for the service provided to the Bank princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s operandi of the Respondent who cater to the need of the financing banks. Such an activity of the Respondent characterises it as service provider to the financing bank. Nowhere the Respondent has pleaded that it was collaborator to the financing bank to serve clients of the Bank concerned. We noticed that the moment service was provided by the Respondent to the funding bank service of the bank begins to serve clients of the later. These are two independent services. While the first one was of the nature of promoting market, the second service was banking or other financial service dealt by two distinct classified entries in the scheme of levy of service tax. This entire transaction comprise two parts. In the first part of the transaction t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls in the first category nor the second category because there was no provision of service made on behalf of the bank to the clients of the bank in absence of evidence to the contrary or no obligation of the Respondent to the client of the bank is on record, it was only a service provider to the funding banks. So also whether the prospective borrower is funded or not that is immaterial for the Respondent since Respondent has no concurrent obligation to the clients of the same. When there is de-link of the entire transaction splitting into two different aspects, each aspect needs examination under touchstone of law. The transaction of the Respondent brought it to the fold of law. 9. In view of the above, there is no scope to approve the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
