TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conduct of business and are paying the same to SEBI. It is not the case of the appellants that the said transaction charges are payable by the ultimate customers and that as the Stock Broker Agent, they are paying the same on behalf of the customers. Therefore, these charges recovered from the customers are in the nature of consideration towards the taxable service rendered by the appellant as far as the customers are concerned. The Tribunal has already gone into the issue of the includability of transaction charges in the service tax in the case of M/S SRIRAM INSIGHT SHARE BROKERS LTD. VERSUS CST, KOLKATA [ 2018 (11) TMI 1383 - CESTAT KOLKATA] where the Tribunal has found the legal responsibility of the payment of transaction charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,977/- under Section 76 and penalty of Rs.5,85,480/- and Rs.13,954/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act respectively; on appeals filed by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned orders dated 19.07.2013 and 18.07.2013, upheld the duty demanded and penalty imposed under Section 76 while setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 78. Hence, these appeal Nos. ST/60503/2013 and ST/60505/ 2013. 2. Shri Nitesh Garg assisted by Shri Kamal Gupta, learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant, reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the impugned order is perverse and passed dis-regarding the consistent Final Orders passed by the Tribunal, in the case of LSE Securities Ltd.- 2013 (29) STR 591 (Tri. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cost. He relies on Sriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd.- 2009 (14) STR 86 (Tri. Kolkata) and Sriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd.- 2019 (26) GSTL 231 (Tri. Kolkata) and submits that the issue stands settled by the Tribunal in favour of the Revenue vide above cases. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The main allegation of the Department is that the appellants are recovering the transaction fees/ charge from their customers and are not discharging the applicable duty on it. The argument of the appellant is that the transaction charges, payable to SEBI, are in the nature of statutory levies and therefore, are not includable in the assessable value; he relies on Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service provided by a stockbroker, shall be the aggregate of the commission or brokerage charged by him on the sale or purchase of securities from the investors and includes the commission or brokerage paid by the stock-broker to any sub-broker; (b) in relation to telephone connections provided to the subscribers, shall be the gross total amount (including adjustments made by the telegraph authority from any deposits made by the subscribers at the time of applications for telephone connections) received by the telegraph authority from the subscribers. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the value of taxable service in this clause shall not include the initial deposits made by the subscribers at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trading Member who has traded for Rs. 250 crores in a calendar month will pay transaction charges of Rs. 1.85 lacs (i.e. @ 0.009% for the first Rs. 50 crores trade values, @ 0.008% for the next Rs. 50 crores trade value, @ 0.007% for the next Rs. 100 crores trade value, @ 0.006% for the balance Rs. 50 crores trade value). 7 . A perusal of above guidelines makes it apparently clear that the transaction charges recovered by the appellant from their respective clients is primarily statutory levy on the trading members and not on the clients of the trading members. We are of the view that if any of such charges which are primarily legal responsibility for payment with the appellant and same have been passed on to their clients, in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trength of which Cenvat credit has been availed by them and as provided under proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, same cannot be denied to them legally. Thus, we hold that the department should verify the documents again on the strength of which the Cenvat credit has been availed by them and if such documents contained all the requisite details has been prescribed under proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the substantive benefit of Cenvat credit cannot be denied to them. 5. In view of the above, we find that the appellant has not made out any case in their favour. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not require intervention. Accordingly, both the appeals are rejected. (Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
