9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... executed among the Respondent, financing bank and the borrower, nor there is any letter of appointment in that regard. There is no role of the Respondent to discharge any obligation to the prospective 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. - Decided against the assessee - refund rejected. - ST/777/2007 - ST/276/2011(PB) - Dated:- 8-7-2011 - S/Shri D.N. Panda, Mathew John, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Fateh Singh, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : D.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 other hand, ld. Counsel for Respondent submits that the Notification No. 14/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 is applicable to the Respondent for which the first Appellate decision is correct in law. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. 6. We examined para-2 of the Show Cause Notice which brings out the modus 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 clien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat 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 appears to be dealing with the commercial concerns who were not the entities covered by second category embraced by the notification. This Respondent neither falls 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
