TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of service tax on the various charges. During investigation, it revealed that service tax on various amounts totaling Rs. 2,46,85,713/- was not paid. Tax which was allegedly due was worked out at Rs. 16,18,761/-. Immediately, when this fact was pointed out, petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- and information in this regard was also transmitted to respondent/department vide letter dated April 29, 2005 but subsequently, after conclusion of the investigation, show cause notice dated March 29, 2006 was issued, which ultimately culminated into the demand as adjudicated by concerned authority vide original order dated August 23, 2006. It is also an undisputed fact that order-in-original dated August 23, 2006 has since been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in the category of Stock Broker Services and registered with the respondent-Department. The department conducted an investigation against the petitioner in the month of May, 2004 alleging non-payment of service tax on the various charges i.e. transaction charges, stamp duty, BSE charges and SEBI fees etc., which revealed that during the period from December, 2000 to March, 2004, petitioner has recovered transaction charges from its sub-brokers, which were shown as income in the books of account and service tax was paid. However, in addition to the said transaction charges, petitioner also recovered certain other charges in the name of miscellaneous charges, trade guarantee fund (TGF) and Investors Protection Fund (IPF), Stamp Duty, Bombay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. Further, Penalty imposed vide order-in-original was also set aside by Commissioner (Appeals), in view of the deposit of amount prior to the service of show cause notice. 4. Dissatisfied with an order passed in appeal, petitioner challenged the same by way of appeal before learned Tribunal qua confirmation of demand of service tax. The department also challenged the said order before the learned Tribunal who vide its order dated May 7, 2012 allowed the appeal filed by petitioner and set aside the impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals); besides, dismissing the appeal preferred by the respondent/department. Subsequent thereto, petitioner requested the respondent/department for refund of a sum of ₹ 15,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osit. Moreover, Section 35F of the Act only talks about refund of pre-deposit deposited with the adjudicating authority. 7. Having elaborately heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record available, we find substance in the contentions putforth by learned counsel for the petitioner and submissions made by learned counsel for respondent to be of no legal weight. 8. Undeniably, respondent/department conducted an investigation against petitioner alleging non-payment of service tax on the various charges. During investigation, it revealed that service tax on various amounts totaling Rs. 2,46,85,713/- was not paid. Tax which was allegedly due was worked out at Rs. 16,18,761/-. Immediately, when this fact was pointed out, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
