2015 (12) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any amount from the appellant directly. The facts as narrated in the impugned order clearly indicate that it is the ING Vyasa Bank who had paid the charges to the foreign bank. In view of this, the appellant cannot be treated as service recipient and no Service Tax can be charged from them under Section 66A read with Rule 2(l)(2)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Moreover, we also find that in A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment had given channelised charged some amount from the appellant s bank ING Vyasa Bank which in turn recovered the same from the appellant. The department demanded Service Tax on the amount which the foreign bank charged from ING Vyasa Banker which, in turn, was recovered from the appellant. On this basis, Service Tax demand of ₹ 96,392/- was confirmed against the appellant along with inter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rge mechanism and that it is ING Vyasa Bank which has received the services, from the foreign bank for which the Service Tax cannot be demanded from the appellant. He, therefore, pleaded that impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri R. Puri, learned DR defended the impugned order by reiterating the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We have considered the submissions from both sides and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X