9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s stated above, at the outset, that the nature of the service provided was misconstrued by the Appellate Authority to hold that refund is admissible to the Respondent which is not permissible by law. Having such view, Revenue came in Appeal before the Tribunal challenging the first Appellate order. 3. The ld. DR appearing for Revenue, supports the order of the Adjudicating Authority. 4. On the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 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 the Respondent traces prospective borrowers to serve the purpose to retail marketing of finance by the financing bank. Thereafter, the service o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ospective borrowers of the Bank. Therefore the material fact suggests that there was no provision of service to third party by the Respondent on behalf of the financing bank. The first Appellate order proceeded under misconception of law misconstruing the notification benefit. 8. We have also examined the notification. The notification categorised the claimants in two parts. The first part appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
