9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me was not being deposited with the Revenue. The said proceedings were dropped by the original adjudicating authority on the finding that the appellants cannot be held to be a stock-broker, inasmuch as, they were sub-broker and were not liable to Service tax, as such, the amount of Service tax collected by them from their customer cannot be held to be recoverable under Section 11D. 2. The said order was reviewed by the Commissioner, who vide his impugned order reversed the same. Hence the present appeal by the party. 3. Commissioner in his impugned order has observed as under: "I have carefully gone through the case records and defence arguments advanced by the party at various stages of the case. Looking to the facts of the case it is f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustomers that the invoices reflect SEBI Regn. Certificate No. INB-190628414, which they are holding in the capacity of a Stock-broker only. The party has explained the scope of the term of stock-broker known in the business circles under their letter dated 27-2-2007 which state that the business of working as an intermediary in respect of buying and selling in shares is known as stock broking business. In the statement of Shri Sanjay Bengali, authorized signatory of the unit, recorded on 15-6-2004, he has stated that M/s. U.S. Bengali, 115, Fortune Tower, Sayajigunj, Vadodara, were doing the business of Stock Broking. In view of above, I find that all the ingredients necessary for levying Service tax on the services provided by the party a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit with Central Government and hence the said amount so collected from customers is required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government under section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944." 4. The above finding of Commissioner that the appellant was registered as stock-broker by SEBI, which registration has neither been suspended nor cancelled does not stand rebutted by the appellant. Their only plea is that they were actually working as sub-broker. I do not find any merits in the above contention of the appellant, inasmuch as they are admittedly covered by the definition of 'stock-broker'. The very fact that they might have acted in some cases as sub-broker itself will not make difference inasmuch as they are admittedly providing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
