9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round of time bar. Referral fees received by the appellant from HDFC Chubb insurance company - Held that:- The service is in connection with business of insurance of HDFC Chubb - In terms of Sub Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994, the service provided by the appellant falls under definition of Insurance Auxiliary Services whereas the Revenue has raised the demand under wrong head. On this ground the demand of service tax under Business Auxiliary Services does not sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.ST/94/2010-DB - Final Order No. A / 11717 /2018 - Dated:- 7-8-2018 - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For Appellant : Shri B. R. Shah (C.A.) For R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equently the matter referred to Larger Bench in the case of M/s Pagariya Auto Center Vs. CCE, Aurangabad 2014 (33) STR 506 (Tri.LB). Due to these conflicting views of different benches and final judgment passed by the Larger Bench, this Tribunal in the case of Rolex Logistics Pvt. Ltd Vs. CST, Bangalore 2009 (13) STR 147 (Tri.-Bang.) and in the case of Aadishwar Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, ahmedabad 2011 (24) STR 81 (Tri.-Ahmd.) held that extended period in these circumstances is not applicable. As regard, the referral fees received in connection with sale of insurance policy of HDFC Chubb, he submits that this service falls under Insurance Auxiliary Services, whereas demand was raised under Business Auxiliary Services, therefore, the same is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as time and again taken a view that the issue was not free from doubt as there were conflicting views of the different benches of this Tribunal and finally the matter was settled by Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pagariya Auto Center (Supra) there is no malafide intention establish against the appellant. We agree that the issue was not free from doubt as per judgment of Pagariya Auto Center (Supra), therefore the extended period could not have been invoked. Accordingly, we hold that the demand of service tax on commission in respect of commission received from ICICI bank is set aside on the ground of time bar. 6. As regard the demand of service tax on referral fees received by the appellant from HDFC Chubb insurance company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
