9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant contended that the service involved is "Business Support Service" which came into existence from 01.04.2008. The appellant was engaged in purchase and sale of old and used cars on commission basis and were also appointed as DSA for M/s. Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd & HDFC Bank Ltd for arranging the finance from their own sides. The show cause notice was issued in this case on 19.10.2006. The said show cause notice was decided by the adjudicating authority vide order dated 09.05.2018 wherein, he confirmed the Service Tax upon appellant under "Business Auxiliary Service". He also ordered for recovery of interest and imposed penalty upon them. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the adjudicating authority is expected to take an unbiased impartial decision." 2.1 In pursuance of the direction through the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while holding that the service deserved to be classified under Business Auxiliary Service held on limitations as follows: Para 11. "As regard [ii] above, the adjudicating authority has contended that due to specific intelligence, the activities of the appellant came to light of the department that they were appointed as DSA. Thus, the act of the appellant amount to suppression of fact to evade payment of service tax and extended period is correctly invoked in this case. In the statement the proprietor Shri Suresh Vishandas Ramani has categorically stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the STC, the importers have tried to create the impression that they were innocent victims of the subsequent interpretation put on the relevant entry, ignoring the fact that the licences were revalidated on certain terms and conditions which did not permit import except through the STC. We are, therefore, satisfied that the import under OGL was not a bonafide act. We, therefore, dismiss both the appeals as well as the writ petition with costs." [paras 11, 13]. 3. Learned AR reiterated the finding by the lower authorities. 4. There has been no serious challenge before us on the point that Business Auxiliary Service is the proper classification as the activities as brought out in para 3 of the show cause notice not only included their ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be stated to be a rent of any kind and it has to come within the ambit of Business Auxiliary Service .To fortify the matter against the appellants despite Larger Bench decision, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly relied upon the statement of Shri Suresh Vishandas Ramani which clearly indicates that Clause 19 (ii) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 clearly brought this kind of service within the ambit of "Business Auxiliary Service". It was also pointed out by Shri. Ramani during the course of the statement that sometimes other sub brokers also bring business to them in which case, they pay them with some commission out of the commission to be earned by them. From the show cause notice, we also analyzed that renting o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
