2018 (7) TMI 1446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that commission received from the broker would fall in the category of business auxiliary services and brokerage received on which service tax of Rs. 1,17,822/- is liable to be taxed, penalty and interest, such conclusion is proper? Whether, without mentioned specific clause of business auxiliary services as mentioned U/s 65(19), the appellant can be held liable for all the services as mentioned in business auxiliary services for the purpose of service tax. As such order passed by all the authorities is legally sustainable." 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a Show Cause N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tri. Mumbai) identically situated case. No doubt it is subsequent to the adjudication of the petitioner are entitled to benefit of the same judgment. 8. It is seen from the description of the activity that the appellant does not enter into any contract, written or implied, with either the financier or the borrower; nor is there any responsibility cst upon the appellant in the event of default on the part of financier or the borrower. Accordingly, the appellant fails the test of description as agency or agent for classification as commission agent under Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994. Theree is no force in the argument that rendering any activity that fall in Section 65(19)(vii) would classify the appellant s 'commission ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5] E.L.T. 719 2001 [138] E.L.T. 381 2002 [148] E.L.T. 1124 (Tri Bang) 2005 [184] E.L.T. 61 (Tri Chennai) 2003 [154] E.L.T. 500 (Tri Bombay) 17. The Adjudicating Authority has to consider the same which he failed to consider. 18. The judgment in the case of the another assessee is produced on record but since appeal was pending, we are not considering the judgment of 27.2.2015. 19. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Kalavatiya and Mr. Pathak has taken us to the order of Adjudicating Authority that Clause (ii) will cover the assessee and they are not only programmer but collecting tax and other services provided by them. 20. They have contended that the fact of order in 2012 ....