ROSHAN MOTORS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 35 -CE/MRT -I/2006 dated 23 -3 -2006.

(2.) HEARD both sides. Relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:

(3.) 1 Learned advocate submits that the appellant is not rendering services to the finance companies which can be treated as business auxiliary services. Arranging of finance was to enable their customers to buy vehicles from them. It is basically a service, if any, rendered in promotion of sale of vehicle by the appellant themselves. The benefit accruing to the finance companies are incidental in nature. The appellant is not selling or promoting all the services rendered by the finance companies. Their job is not exclusive promotion of services of finance companies. The mere mention in the agreements that they are direct marketing agencies of the finance companies should not be mis -understood and conclusion arrived at that they are rendering business auxiliary services. He also submits that every case where money/consideration is received need no necessarily involve rendering of services.