9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri A.K. Madan, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant. None for the Respondent. [Order per S.S. Kang, Vice President] - Heard learned SDR as none appeared on behalf of respondent in spite of notice. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that respondents are not providing any Business Auxiliary Service as bank is not the client of the respondent. The respondents are only helping the buyer of vehicles in seeking loans for purchase of vehicle and respondents are only giving service to the client of the banks and not to the banks. Therefore, they are out of the scope of Business Auxiliary Service, as the pre-requisite to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iary Services'. He also found force in the contention of the assessee that there was double taxation and agreed with the contention that there was no value addition by the respondents-assessees and that there was no allegation in the show cause notices that, the Banks were not discharging their service tax liability. 6. It is obvious from the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) that he has proceeded on totally an erroneous footing that, a bank cannot avail of 'Business Auxiliary Services' as a client. From the nature of agreements on record including the franchisee agreement in the third appeal, it is clear that the assessees were, under an agreement with the bank had undertaken to provide service in relation to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals), is, about the nature of arrangement that existed under the agreement and whether, in reality, any commission was being passed on at the instance of the bank, or by the bank. The question would also remain whether the amount was directly given to the customers of the assessees under some tripartite agreement and whether it became actually payable to the respondents and, if so, at what stage? 7. We, therefore, set-aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in all these three mattes and remand the matters to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsidering of all three appeals on merit and decide them afresh, in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in this judgment. The appeals are, ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
