9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the heading ‘Business Auxiliary Services'. No service has been rendered by the appellant to the finance company and the activity has been done on the principal-to-principal basis - thus no Service Tax is leviable on the amount received by the appellant by way of share of income from NBFC in the activity of financing. Reimbursement of common expenses in the nature of electricity and other expenses incurred commonly by the appellant - no service can be stated to have been rendered thus the appellant is not liable to Service Tax. The levy of Service Tax on the share income as the result of IOP financing received from the NBFC Company is not liable to be taxed - Service Tax in respect of Processing Fee received from the Bank als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces classifiable under the category of Business Auxiliary Services', Banking Financial Services' and Business Support Services' but is not discharging Service tax liability on some of the services, namely:- (i) Brokerage/Commission IPO (ii) Brokerage/Commission-Fixed income product (iii) IPO Finance Fee (iv) Processing Fee (v) Recovery of commission expenses 4. The show-cause notice was issued on 15.10.2008 after an enquiry spread over last two and half years and extended period was also invoked under the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 alleging that the appellant have suppressed the nature and quantum of receipts with a view to evade Service Tax liability. The show-cause covered the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h it or the incentive for giving business to the bank, observing that the transaction is covered as the taxable service under the category of Business Auxiliary Services', the same has been held liable to service Tax. 5.2 The contention of the appellant is that the receipt from the bank is not linked to any services nor it is linked to the interest earned by the bank. Thus, there is no element of promotion of business or marketing of business for the bank. The investor whose money is deposited is not even aware so as to with which bank his share application money is deposited. Further, the situation is revenue neutral as the credit of Service Tax, if any, discharged by the appellant would be available to the concerned bank and accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue for a period ranging from 15 to 45 days. The agreement further provides in clause 3 that the parties i.e. the appellant and the finance company agree to share equally the net profits or losses to be earned in each of the funding transactions. 6.1. The contention of the Revenue is that the activity undertaken by the appellant involves a service to the NBFC, a finance company. Though the said service to the NBFC may not strictly get covered by the "provision on behalf" of the client" the activity is definitely covered by the clause promotion of business of NBFC companies'. Though the payments that the appellant received, was claimed as a share of income, it is in fact the remuneration for the service provided and, therefore, the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upport services, which falls under the category of Business Support Services'. Further case of the Revenue is that as the appellant has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his contention as to why the amount received is not taxable under the category of Business Support Services' and accordingly held the same liable to tax under the category of Business Support Services'. 7.1 The contention of the appellant is that the amount is received by way of reimbursement of electric charges and office expenses from other group companies. In actual, no service has been rendered to the other group companies. So far receipt of Rs. 2,72,269/- is concerned, the same relates to the receipt on account of infrastructural support provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
