9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oked for raising demand. Held that: - the impugned order has erred in setting aside the tax demand of ₹ 20,72,830/- for providing ‘business auxiliary services’ under section 65 (105) (zzb) of Finance Act, 1994. However, that amount has been paid before the issue of show cause notice. It is settled by the above decisions that the lack of clarity in the tax leviable under section 65 (105) (zzb) would detract from the liability to be imposed with penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. We find that the present issue is also one such. Tax on commissions from banks and financial institutions confirmed - penalties set aside - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of Revenue. - APPEAL NO: ST/485/2011 - Order No. A/90764/16/STB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service provided by client within the definition of section 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994. An amount of ₹ 17,94,746/- had been paid them on 19 th November 2005 with ₹ 3,16,948/- debited in CENVAT credit. Though the original authority did find them to be liable to tax on all these receipts, the first appellate authority, while discharging them from tax liability on receipts connected with sale of vehicles and parts, also determined that liability on commission received from banks and financial institutions did arise only after 1 st May 2006 when support services of business and commerce became taxable under section 65(105)(zzzq) of Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, nothing in the demand survived. The impugned order relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evaluation of prospective customer also was in place prior to 10-9-2004. From 10-9-2004 development of prospective customer also is brought in. But even without this additional expression in the definition, the activities carried out by the Appellant was covered within the expression of promotion and marketing of services provided by the client . Actually this matter is no longer res integra because the Tribunal has examined this issue and held that such services were covered under the scope of the definition of Business Auxiliary Service prior to 10-9-2004 as decided in the last para of the decision of the Tribunal in Bridgestone Financial Services v. CST - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 505. 12. We note that both the entries for Business Aux ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant is definitely promoting the finance scheme of the finance companies but the fact that the said promotion is limited to vehicles sold by them is not significantly relevant to consider their status. 6.3 In any sale of goods, it can be said that both the buyer and seller are beneficiaries. Similarly in relation to any service both the provider and recipient are beneficiaries. In a school, if there are no teacher/teachers no student can be taught and if there are no students there is no need for teachers. In a way they are rendering services to each other. In this case it has been stressed that the appellant is not rendering services exclusively for the finance companies as their objective is to promote their own business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the authorities in holding that the appellant render business auxiliary services to the finance companies and the service charges received by them are subject to service tax is legal and proper and does not call for any interference. The demand of service tax along with interest is confirmed. 6. In view of the above decisions, the impugned order has erred in setting aside the tax demand of ₹ 20,72,830/- for providing business auxiliary services under section 65 (105) (zzb) of Finance Act, 1994. However, that amount has been paid before the issue of show cause notice. It is settled by various decisions that the lack of clarity in the tax leviable under section 65 (105) (zzb) would detract from the liability to be imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
