9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2015 - FINAL ORDER NO. 51825/2019 - Dated:- 9-9-2019 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. C L MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Present for the Appellant: Shri Sumit Wadhwa Ms Urvahi Kalra, Advocates Present for the Respondent : Shri P Juneja, AR ORDER Present appeal arises out of impugned Order-in-Original dated 02 December, 2014 wherein the learned Commissioner has confirmed a demand of service tax of ₹ 58,55,129/- alongwith interest against the appellant. 2. The appellant is a National Cooperative Development Corporation created by an Act of Parliament called the NCDC Act, 1962. It is promoting programmes of cooperative development in the country and as per the policy of the Government, one of the main activity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax cannot be levied. The Appellant is acting as an agent to the Government and it cannot be said that Government is engaged in business in the present arrangement. 4. On the other hand, Learned Authorised Representative supported the finding of the Adjudicating Authority. He submitted that the activity of the appellant in disbursing loans may be due to Government policy but the same is governed by the statutory provisions of Finance Act, 1994. It is a matter of fact that the loans were given to sugar factories working on commercial principles and activity of disbursing loans and getting commission for the same is clearly covered by the statutory provisions of section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 under category of Business Auxili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10. We have perused the appeal record and analysed Board circular clarifying on the fees collected for statutory performance. We find that there is no case for excluding income of appellant as commission in disbursing loan, from tax liability under BAS. We do not find any infirmity in the order of original authority on merit. Accordingly, the appellant have no case on merits. 6. We find that this Tribunal has already decided the issue on merits against the appellant vide Final Order No. 50565-50566/2018 dated 06 February, 2018. We follow the same decision and hold that the impugned order-in-Original under reference needs no interference. 7. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (operative part of the order pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
