2011 (2) TMI 921 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - appellant has produced the documents claiming that the main broker has paid the tax during the relevant period on value including the commission paid to the sub-broker namely the appellant, I deem it appropriate that the matter should be verified by the original authority if necessary by referring to the jurisdictional authority in-charge of the main broker - appellant shall produce the evident to the original authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order - Appeal is allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23.08.2010 regarding sub-broking activities and service tax liability during a specific period.

Analysis:
The appellant engaged in sub-broking activities during a disputed period, falling under the definition of a broker as per Section 65(101) of the Finance Act, 1994. The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs.32,792/- with penalties, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant acknowledged the duty liability but claimed that the main broker had already paid the service tax during the relevant period on the brokerage received. Despite evidence presented, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not grant relief due to lack of specific identification of the payment by the main broker. The learned SDR supported the Commissioner (Appeals) findings.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's claim and decided to remand the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration. The Tribunal directed the original authority to verify the appellant's claim by referring to the jurisdictional authority of the main broker. The appellant was given 30 days to produce evidence supporting their claim. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for further examination and verification of the payment made by the main broker during the disputed period.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper verification and consideration of evidence in tax liability cases, emphasizing the need for specific identification of payments made by related parties. The decision to remand the matter for further examination demonstrates the Tribunal's commitment to ensuring a fair and thorough review of the facts before finalizing a decision on tax liabilities.