TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 990
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. [Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - Revenue came in Appeal being aggrieved by the first Appellate order holding that refund is admissible to the Respondent. Facts on record throws light that the Respondent was engaged by ICICI Bank Ltd. for sourcing customers to avail housing finance from ICICI, HFC. Revenue found that the Appellant was remunerated by ICICI, HFC in pursuance of the term....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agreed with the Respondent and refund claim was allowed. Revenue was of opinion on the facts as stated above, at the outset that the nature of the service provided was misconstrued by the Appellate Authority to hold that refund is admissible to the Respondent which is not permissible by law. Having such view, Revenue came in Appeal before the Tribunal challenging the first Appellate order. 3.&ems....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service of the bank begins to serve clients of the later. These are two independent services. While the first one was of the nature of promoting market, the second service was banking or other financial service dealt by two distinct classified entries in the scheme of levy of service tax. This entire transaction comprise two parts. In the first part of the transaction the Respondent traces prospe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is any letter of appointment in that regard. There is no role of the Respondent to discharge any obligation to the prospective borrowers of the Bank. Therefore the material fact suggests that there was no provision of service to third party by the Respondent on behalf of the financing bank. The first Appellate order proceeded under misconception of law misconstruing the notification benefit. ....