https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213607 CESTAT, Delhi held that the appellant's activities for a financing bank-collecting documents, preparing profiles, and facilitating assessment of borrowers-constituted taxable Business Auxiliary Service to the bank, not to borrowers. The SCN dated 22.8.2006 covering 1.7.2003-31.3.2005 was held within limitation, as time ran from the department's knowledge on 20.1.2005, making adjudication not time-barred. The amendment by Finance Act 2004 and related notification did not grant immunity, as the appellant served the bank under a quid pro quo arrangement and had no privity with borrowers. On penalty, CESTAT held that simultaneous penalties under ss. 76 and 78 would be harsh; penalty under s. 78 alone was sustained. en-us Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2025 13:16:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213607 CESTAT, Delhi held that the appellant's activities for a financing bank-collecting documents, preparing profiles, and facilitating assessment of borrowers-constituted taxable Business Auxiliary Service to the bank, not to borrowers. The SCN dated 22.8.2006 covering 1.7.2003-31.3.2005 was held within limitation, as time ran from the department's knowledge on 20.1.2005, making adjudication not time-barred. The amendment by Finance Act 2004 and related notification did not grant immunity, as the appellant served the bank under a quid pro quo arrangement and had no privity with borrowers. On penalty, CESTAT held that simultaneous penalties under ss. 76 and 78 would be harsh; penalty under s. 78 alone was sustained. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213607