https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340368 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order that classified the appellant's activity as "Business Auxiliary Services" for service tax purposes. The Tribunal determined that the appellant's role as a finance broker did not align with the criteria for such classification, as they did not act as an agent for financiers or borrowers. Citing a relevant precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's receipt of commission from borrowers, without marketing products or services, distinguished them from traditional commission agents. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding the service tax demand unsustainable and allowing the appeal. en-us Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Apr 2018 14:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340368 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order that classified the appellant's activity as "Business Auxiliary Services" for service tax purposes. The Tribunal determined that the appellant's role as a finance broker did not align with the criteria for such classification, as they did not act as an agent for financiers or borrowers. Citing a relevant precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's receipt of commission from borrowers, without marketing products or services, distinguished them from traditional commission agents. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding the service tax demand unsustainable and allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340368