2008 (6) TMI 185 - AT - Service Tax

Demand confirmed on the ground that the additional amount collected by the appellants (stock-broker) from their clients as transaction charge is part of service charges and this amount cannot be excluded from the gross value - Credit has been disallowed as the appellants could not produce the details in connection with their service tax registration on both the counts the appellants do not have a prima facie case for total waiver of the pre-deposit stay granted partly

Summary

Issues:
Demand of service tax and education cess, inclusion of transaction charges in service charges for tax computation, admissibility of Cenvat Credit, waiver of pre-deposit.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, heard arguments from both sides regarding the demand of service tax, education cess, and penalty imposed on the appellants. The Commissioner confirmed the demand based on the inclusion of additional "transaction charge" collected from clients as part of service charges for tax calculation. Additionally, the reversal of Cenvat Credit was ordered due to the appellants' failure to provide necessary details related to their service tax registration.

The appellant's advocate argued that transaction charges reimbursed by clients to stock exchanges should not be considered part of the gross service amount. He cited a Tribunal decision supporting this claim. Regarding Cenvat Credit, it was contended that the credit was valid as it pertained to service tax paid on mobile telephones.

The Department strongly opposed the waiver of pre-deposit, stating that other stockbrokers nationwide pay service tax on transaction charges as part of service charges. After a detailed hearing, the Tribunal examined a Circular by the National Stock Exchange, clarifying that transaction charges are payable by Trading Members based on turnover slabs, not by clients. Therefore, the charges are part of service charges and should be taxed accordingly. The Tribunal found no grounds for total waiver of pre-deposit.

The Tribunal noted a decision by the Bangalore Bench regarding handling charges but found it inapplicable to the present case due to differences in the nature and payment responsibility of transaction charges. Consequently, the Tribunal did not consider the transaction charges reimbursable or excludable from service charges.

Ultimately, the Tribunal did not grant a complete waiver of pre-deposit. The appellant agreed to pre-deposit a specific amount, leading to the directive to deposit the sum within a specified period. Compliance with this direction would result in the waiver of the remaining balance during the appeal's pendency.