NARAIN PRASAD GATTANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these petitions common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common order.

(2.) By way of these petitions, the petitioners have assailed the judgment and order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners were dismissed.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the appellants are working as a Finance Broker. The nature of work is simply that he provides a common plateform to the persons who temporarily have the surplus funds and intend to lend money to the person who needs finance for their business temporarily. In this process Appellants find out customers who desire to take loan on the basis of interest and as soon as customer demands money he is introduced to money lenders and after settlement of terms of conditions a cheque for the borrowed money is issued by money lender and is given by the Appellants to the borrower. At the same time the borrower issues a cheque against payment of interest to the money lender as well as a cheque for brokerage to the Appellants. It would be appreciated that since the brokerage is received from the borrower of money who is certainly not the receiver of the service and further, Appellants is not working as an agent/representative either of money lender or borrower. The Appellants were always under a bona fide belief that they are not covered by any of the categories of services defined under Finance Act, 1994 and in view of this fact they neither obtained registration with the Central Excise Department nor did they pay any amount of Service Tax on the brokerage received by the Appellants from the borrower of the money.