TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 801
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeals of the appellants and upheld the Orders-in-Original. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is same, we dispose of both the appeals by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the appeal No.ST/86/2008 are taken. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are holders of registration certificate under the category of authorised service station. During the course of their business, they are also engaged in making arrangements for vehicle loans to interested customers, from various financial institutions, for which the appellants are getting some commission/income as percentage of loan amounts, which is reflected in their books of accounts as incentive received. As the said activity of the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l etc. to the financial institutions. She has also submitted that there was no written agreement between the parties and in consideration for providing the basic infrastructure, the appellants have been paid certain money which has been accounted in the Profit & Loss Account as commission received for the purpose of Income Tax Act. She has further submitted that the adjudicating authority has wrongly considered the said commission received as consideration for BAS rendered by the appellants to the financial institutions without any documentary evidence on record. She further submitted that the adjudicating authority has failed to meet the test laid down by the Larger Bench in the case of Pagariya Auto Centre Vs. CCE [2014(33) STR 506 (Tri. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f somehow escaping from the liability of the service tax. He further argued that the lease agreement entered into with the landlord does not permit the appellants to sub-let the premises to any other person. He further submitted that though the appellant claims that the amount received from the financial institutions is towards rental charges for the space and the facilities provided but failed to produce any documentary evidence showing the collection of rental charges from the financial institutions. Rather the appellant is receiving the amount as percentage of amounts of loan sanctioned to the appellant s customers and the same is accounted only as commission received in the books of accounts. He also submitted that in the normal course ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....does not alter the character of BAS. Further we find that the decisions relied upon by the appellants are not squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the present case the appellants are receiving commission and not the rental charges whereas the decision relied upon by the learned AR in the case of Ved Automotives and Arpanna Automotive Pvt. Ltd. are squarely applicable in the present case. because in both the decisions, it is the commission which was received by the appellants and the Division Bench of this Tribunal has held them as falling under the category of BAS. Therefore by following the ratios of the said two decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants are liable to pay the se....