Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 215 - CESTAT, NEW DELHIClassification of service - Extended period of limitation - Business auxiliary service - Section 65 (101) - Sub-broker to the main stock broker - Circular No. 334/13/2009-TRU, dated 6.7.09 - Appellant is not a sub-broker recognized under the SEBI Act, 1992 Held that:- Once the appellant is out of purview of section 65 (101), its activity was rightly covered by the service found by Revenue because there was a taxable service provided which unambiguously appears to be in the nature of business auxiliary service since the appellant was not sub-broker recognized by law. Therefore, both the authorities have rightly held that the appellant provided the impugned service. In favour of revenue Penalty - Held that:- There was confusion in understanding the law by the assessee as to the role of sub-broker and taxability of the service provided by the appellant. Accordingly, in all fairness the appellant shall only be liable to service tax for the normal period without being taxed for extended period. The reasons aforesaid also convince to hold that the appellant shall not be liable to penalty. In favour of assessee
|