2019 (6) TMI 1020

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e buyer of the goods and making payments to the sellers of the goods. It is absolutely clear that the amount received by the appellant is not commission but only the charges towards financing the fund to the buyer. Therefore, the same does not qualify as commission particularly under Business Auxiliary Service. Hence, the demand confirmed under the head of Business Auxiliary Service is not sust .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d towards sale of the goods by M/s. Jain Bright Steel Traders, is falling under the head of Business Auxiliary Service and it is leviable to service tax. Accordingly, the demand was confirmed and the same was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore the present appeal. 2. Shri P.V. Sheth, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the amount which was re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the facts presented before us, it is clear that there is no transaction of commission between the seller of the goods and the appellant. The appellant is financing the sale value on behalf of the buyer of the goods and making payments to the sellers of the goods. The appellant 3 Appeal No. ST/36/2010-D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X