Automobile dealers not providing business auxiliary service to Banks for financing vehicles, ruling in favor of the appellant.

The Tribunal held that providing table space to Banks by automobile dealers for financing vehicles did not constitute business auxiliary service. The absence of evidence of agreements or guidelines from the Banks led to the ruling that the appellants did not provide any such service. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Similarly, the commission received by the appellants from Banks for financing vehicles was not considered as rent for table space, as there was no proof of providing business auxiliary service. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order and allowing the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether providing table space to Banks by automobile dealers constitutes business auxiliary service.
2. Whether receiving commission from Banks for financing vehicles constitutes business auxiliary service.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a dealer of motor vehicles, provided table space to Banks in their business premises where the Banks financed vehicles sold by the appellant. The Revenue contended that this constituted business auxiliary service. However, the appellant argued that merely providing table space did not amount to providing business auxiliary service, citing precedents. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and held that if the activity falls within the definition of business auxiliary service, then it would be considered as such. In this case, as there was no evidence of an agreement or guidelines from the Banks for providing commission, the Tribunal ruled that the appellants did not provide any business auxiliary service to the Banks. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

2. The Revenue argued that the commission received by the appellants from Banks for financing vehicles should be considered as a rent for providing table space. However, the Tribunal found that in the absence of evidence such as agreements or guidelines from the Banks, it could not be established that the appellants provided any business auxiliary service to the Banks. As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

---