9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned banks. The actual agencies which provide the financial service by giving loans are those banks. They are actually the clients of the appellants. Thus, the services of the appellants were very much that in the nature of Business Auxiliary Services. Time limitation - Held that:- It is an admitted and apparent fact that since 01.07.2003, the appellant has not discharged the liability. They only got themselves registered under Business Auxiliary Services on 25.10.2004 but the simultaneous fact remains that during the said period (since 01.07.2003 to 10.09.2004), there was a prevalent confusion about the nature of the impugned activities - In the present case also, the demand is for the period w.e.f. July 2003 to December 2004. The Sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aying the service tax. However, for the aforesaid amount tax liability of ₹ 20,75,821/- was alleged to not have been discharged by the appellant. The same was raised vide the Show Cause Notice No. 3748 dated 31.07.2007. The said demand was confirmed by the Order of original Adjudicating Authority dated 31.05.2011. Being aggrieved, an Appeal before Commissioner(Appeals) was filed who vide Order dated 13.09.2013 has upheld the findings of lower Adjudicating Authority. Resultantly, the Appeal in hand. 2. We have heard Mr. Nikhil Gupta/ Sumit K. Batra, Ld. Advocates for the appellants and Mr. Sanjay Jain, Ld. DR for the Department. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that since the Business Auxiliary Services came into tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty to be discharged is not in dispute. Once this is the situation, the Circular as impressed upon by the appellant is of no significance to extend him the benefit. The non-payment of service tax, in the given circumstances, is impressed upon as nothing but an act of the appellant with an intention to evade tax. Resultantly, the extended period of limitation was rightly been invoked and the demand has rightly been confirmed. Appeal is prayed to be set aside. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the business model of the appellant was such that they used to get commission from financial institutes for introducing customers. The said financial institutes used to pay commission in a fixed perc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation, there were doubts in respect of the activities undertaken by various dealers promoting market for the financial institutes. The said Circular was taken note of by the Tribunal in the case of Maheshwari Bajaj Vs. C.C.E., Ahmedabad 2010 (19) S.T.R. 905 (Tri.-Ahmd.) wherein it was held as follows:- As is clear from the Circular 06.11.2006, there was doubt in the field as regards coverage of above activity under category of Business Auxiliary Service. The same stand clarified by the Board s Notification dated 06.11.2006. Inasmuchas , the period is much earlier to the issuance of said Circular and the Show Cause Notice stand issued on 24.07.2008, the demand is required to be held as barred by limitation. 7. In the present case also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
