https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272067 The tribunal ruled in favor of M/s Fulchand Tikamchand, a finance broker, in their challenge against being classified as a provider of 'business auxiliary service' and imposition of service tax by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. The tribunal emphasized the importance of accurately identifying taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994. It concluded that the appellant's activities as a broker did not establish an agency relationship with financiers or borrowers, falling outside the scope of 'business auxiliary service' as defined in the Act. The impugned order imposing service tax was set aside. en-us Thu, 03 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272067 The tribunal ruled in favor of M/s Fulchand Tikamchand, a finance broker, in their challenge against being classified as a provider of 'business auxiliary service' and imposition of service tax by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. The tribunal emphasized the importance of accurately identifying taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994. It concluded that the appellant's activities as a broker did not establish an agency relationship with financiers or borrowers, falling outside the scope of 'business auxiliary service' as defined in the Act. The impugned order imposing service tax was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 03 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272067