9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount spent by the appellants for collecting the EMI. In our opinion 10% fixed by the Commissioner for arriving at the cost of collection of EMI is arbitrary and cannot be sustainable. At the same time we are unable to agree with the submission that appellant is not liable to pay any Service Tax towards the cost of collecting of EMI on the ground that there is no such cost at all. In our opinion when EMI is collected by the appellant from the borrower, it amounts to providing business auxiliary services to the banks and therefore appellant’s contention that there is no service at all and no cost has been collected by them towards collecting EMI cannot be accepted. Matter remanded back for quantification of demand with the help of profe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant from the banks. The payment of 10% has been arrived by the Commissioner but admittedly no basis has been communicated either in the order or in the show cause notice. The total amount of Service Tax demanded is ₹ 2,46,09,824/- and the period is covered by two show cause notices issued by the Revenue. Besides demanding Service Tax with interest, penalties also have been imposed. 2. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel that the demand of Service Tax on the 10% of the sale consideration on the ground that collection of EMI is the responsibility of the assessee and 10% of the sale consideration can be considered as the amount that is required to be spent/paid for clearing the EMI. We find that in this case both bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counting area, it would not be fair to come to the conclusion that it is not possible and in our opinion it should be possible. In the result, the impugned order is set aside, requirement of pre-deposit is waived and matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority. The appellant shall submit the requisite certificate from a professional qualified/experienced cost accountant within 3 months from today (the time requested by the counsel for the appellant) and submit it to the Commissioner who shall proceed to adjudicate the matter afresh. Needless to say the appellant shall be provided the opportunity to be heard again on the issue other than the observations made above, we have not expressed any opinion on the other issues involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
