9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Representative (DR) - for the respondent ORDER Per. S. K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 02/08/2011 passed by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is working as a finance broker. The appellant arranges the borrowers, who need money and introduces them with the money lenders, who prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal, passed in the case of Amarnath Associates vs. CCE, Jaipur. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the finding in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case record. 5. We find that the issue arising in the present case stand settled by this Tribunal by final order dated 06/06/2017 in the case of Amarnath Associates (supra). The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar set of facts came up for consideration by the Tribunal in Fulchand Tikamchand vs. CCE & C, Nagpur - 2016 TIOL 502 CESTAT - MUM, wherein the Tribunal held as below :- 8. It is seen from the description of the activity that the appellant does not enter into any contract, written or implied, with either the financier or the borrower; nor is there any responsibility cast upon the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place in the market. The consideration is, thus, not connected with the sale of a product or service belonging to the person who makes over the consideration. The appellant, therefore, does not find fitment in Section 65(19)(vii) as provider of 'business auxiliary service.' 10. The circular relied upon in the impugned order appears to have been misapplied by the adjudicating authority; the cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f "business auxiliary service". 5. We find that the ratio followed by above decision is applicable to the present case. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable and the appellants are not liable to service tax. Regarding the denial of Cenvat credit, the learned Counsel for the appellant did not press for their case, as they are not able to produce the connected documents. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
