9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal allowed. - ST/1480-1482/2010 - Final Order Nos. A/70154-70156/2016(DB) - Dated:- 27-4-2016 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and Ashok Kumar Arya, Member (T) None, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Goswami, Addl. Commissioner, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Anil Choudhary, Member (J)] . - The appellant is in appeal against common Orders-in-Appeal dated 30-6-2010 whereby liability to service tax was confirmed under the classification Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) for commission received from banks and financial institutions. 2. The brief facts are that the Revenue on the basis of information that banks and financial institutions were paying commission to the direct selling agent(s) and most of thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nil HDFC Bank 1,81,924/- 18,916/- 28-3-2005 to 1-9-2006 3. The appellant contested the show cause notices by filing reply stating therein that they are automobile dealer and not financing agent or insurance agent. Their business is selling vehicles. They have let only the financing agency to use their premises in order to promote the sale of vehicles. There is no principal and agent relationship in the agreement with the finance company. They are not providing any service of any nature to any of the financing company. They only act as a channel between the customer or a prospective customer of the vehicle and the bank or financial company. For that, they a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o purchased vehicle. It was also held that the activity of the appellant amounts to direct selling agent of the bank/institution. Reliance was placed on the rulings of this Tribunal in the cases of Malpani Finance v. CCE - 2008 (10) S.T.R. 300 (Tri.-Del.) and Bridgestone Financial Services v. CCE - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 505 (Tri.). 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. The appellant is absent in spite of notice and was also absent on previous four dates. Hence, the appeals are taken up for ex parte disposal with assistance of ld. AR for Revenue. 8. The appellants have raised the following grounds : - (i) There is failure of natural justice, further enquiry not made from Banks, if service tax on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Bank/Financial Institution to the effect that there is agreement to provide only space/venue to the Bank/Financial Institution in the appellant s premises. We further notice from the statement of commission paid by ICICI Bank, that the amount varies month to month. In some months, commission is less than ₹ 1,000/- whereas in some months it exceeds ₹ 30,000/-. Thus the documents on record prove that commission/incentive earned by appellant depends on level of business generated for the Bank/Finance Company. Thus, the activity without any doubt falls under BAS for promoting or marketing of service provided by client . We also take notice of the Larger Bench s decision of this Tribunal dated 12-9-2013 as reported in 2014 (33) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly. The appeal stand remitted to the appropriate Bench in the West Zonal Bench of this Tribunal for adjudication on merits and in the light of the observations and principles spelt out in this order . 11. Thus, we find that there was interpretational issue, as to liability to service tax in the matter, as is evident by the nature of activity and clarification by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal. Accordingly, we hold-` (i) Service tax is payable under the category of BAS under Section 65(19), by the appellant for the normal period; (ii) Extended period is not invocable; (iii) Penalties imposed are set aside. 12. Thus, the appeals are allowed in part as indicated above. (Pronounced in the open Court on 27-4-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
