9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein a demand of service tax of Rs. 65,49,152/- has been confirmed against the appellant along with interest and various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer two wheelers i.e. scooters and motor cycles. They have given some loan to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finance Act, 1994 on the appellants. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not cover under the definition of 'Banking and Other Financial Institutions', therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax under the said category. It is also contested by the ld. Counsel of the appellant that the amount received b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that as the appellant has not provided any documentary evidence that the amount shown in their balance sheet is the interest only and there must be an agreement between the parties, therefore, the same amount is to be treated as service charges received by the appellant from their subsidiary company for providing deposits. 5. Heard the parties. 6. On careful consideration of submissions mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant is not an interest, merely saying that the amount received by the appellant is service charges for providing deposit to their subsidiary companies is without any evidence and the same cannot be accepted. 9. In that circumstance, without going into the other arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the appellant, we hold that the amount received by the appellant is interest cannot be sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
