TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice S. N. Jha, President and Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) (Final Order No. 205/2008-ST dated 13.8.2008 certified on 28.8.2008 in Appeal No. ST/203/2007) Shri O. P. Khurana, Consultant for Appellants. Shri A. K. Madan, DR for Respondent. [Order per S. N. Jha, President] - This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order-in-appeal of the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 05.10.2006 upholding the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 30.06.2006 confirming the Service Tax demand of Rs. 68,341/- with interest thereon. 2. The appellant is a sub-broker and the point for consideration is whether as a sub-broker he is liable to pay Service Tax. The dispute relates to the period from Oc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;stock-broker' includes sub-broker and, therefore, the appellant comes under the purview of the definition of 'stock-broker' under the Act. 5. The taxable service in respect of sale or purchase of securities is defined in sub-clause (a) of Clause 105 of Section 65. The provision, as it stood prior to the aforesaid amendment of 2004, reads as under: taxable service means any service provided to an investor by stock-broker in connection with the sale or purchase of securities listed on a recognized stock exchange. By the amendment, the words any person were substituted for an investor . Thus any service provided to any person , and not only to an investor, by a stock-broker, would amount to taxable service wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he stock-broker under the agreement with him. 7. The submission that the stock-broker has already paid service tax on the entire amount and, therefore, any amount to be paid by the appellant as sub-broker would amount to double payment looks attractive at the first instance, but is devoid of substance. In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, as a provider of taxable service he is liable to pay Service Tax on the value of the service i.e. the brokerage received from the stock-broker. From the order of the lower authority, it appears that there was no evidence to show that he had discharged this liability. 8. In Vijay Sharma Company vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh (supra), it was observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
