2015 (9) TMI 531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ns to its customers and that it was not charging any rental from them (i.e. banks/financial institutions). In the light of the said statement, we find that the inference by Commissioner (Appeals) that the amount received by the respondent was for providing accommodation and space is not supported by any evidence with regard thereto. That such commission/incentive is liable to service tax under bus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inst the order-in-appeal dated 21.10.2010 in terms of which service tax demands of ₹ 3,39,071/- and ₹ 1,64,140/- confirmed along with interest and penalty by the primary adjudicating authority were set aside.The primary adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand under business auxiliary service [Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994] on the ground that the respondent provided se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt and his statement is a relied upon documents (No. 5). 3. None appeared for the respondent nor any request for adjournment is received. It is seen that even earlier on 23.1.2015 nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. 4. We have considered Revenues contentions and perused the records. In his statement, Shri Brij Mohan clearly stated that the appellant was receiving incentive/commissio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X