2011 (2) TMI 864

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....artment against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.235/2010 dt. 24.6.2010. 2. Heard the learned DR. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. 3. The respondent functions as loan processor between ICICI bank, Home Finance Co. Ltd. and the borrowers. The bank collects processing fee from the borrowers. Out of the amount so collected as processing fee, some portion is paid to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act. 4. Ld. DR, reiterating the grounds of appeal, submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the entire demand which was confirmed invoking the extended period of limitation. Therefore, his setting aside the penalty is contradictory to the decision in upholding the demand under extended period of limitation. 5.1. I have carefully considere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ability or otherwise of the extended period of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) taking note of the fact that the entire service tax stands paid before issue of show-cause notice upheld the demand without going into the limitation aspect. However, taking the facts and circumstances of the case, which involved receipt of portion of the processing fee by the respondent from the bank and the ban....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t that the service of loan processor rendered by them to IHFCL and the service of sanctioning of loan rendered by IHFCL to borrowers are two separate taxable services. As such the appellants have not also raised any bills against IHFCL and the service tax incidence is also not collected from IHFCL. It is also seen that once the lapse on the part of the appellants is brought to their notice, they h....