9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A-954/Kol./2008 dt. 23.9.2008 certified on 26.9.2008 in Appeal No. ST/21/2007) Shri J.A. Khan, SDR for Appellant. Shri K.K. Acharya, Adv. for Respondent. [Order per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Member (Technical)] - Heard both sides. 2. Shri K.K.Acharya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents takes a preliminary objection that Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 has been amended w.e.f. 11.05.2007 under which only a Committee of Commissioners can authorize filing Appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). He states that in this case, the Appeal has been filled on 14.05.2007 on the basis of an authorization by the jurisdictional Commissioner and hence the Appeal is not maintainable. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 02.11.2007. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents fairly states that as far as the impugned period is concerned, the earlier order of the Tribunal cited above covers the period from 09.12.2004 to 15.06. 2005. However, for the period from 16.06.2005 to 30.06.2005, he states that the provisions of section 65 (47) of the Finance Act has undergone change and in the revised definition of 'franchise' the provisions regarding payment of fees etc. has been done away with. Hence he states that the earlier decision of the Tribunal requires to be re-considered in the light of the changed provisions for the subsequent period. 4. We have heard both sides in respect of changed definition of 'franchise' under the Service Tax L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents are merely undertaking the verification process and the work of completing the documentation on behalf M/s ICICI as its Authorized Representative and the Respondents are getting paid for such services whether or not the product of M/s. ICICI is sold in a particular case. As such, we are of the considered view that looking at the actual services rendered by the Respondents, their services are nothing but 'business auxiliary service' not only for the period prior to 16.06.2005 as held by us earlier in our cited Order dated 02.11.2007, but even for the subsequent period after that date. 5. Shri Acharya, learned Advocate has also cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Malabar Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.S.T. Chenna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
