9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 107 - AT - Service TaxTurnover charges & V-SAT Charges - valuation - inclusion - forward contract service - whether would form part of the value for the services rendered by them as said charges are collected by the applicant from its customers and deposited with the respective commodity exchanges - Held that - As decided in M/s. LSE Securities Ltd. Vs. CCE 2012 (6) TMI 364 - CESTAT, New Delhi the turnover charges and other identical statutory charges are not in the nature of commission or brokerage and should not be taxed under the said category. Similarly, in the case of Saurin Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad (2009 (5) TMI 99 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) has held that the fixed charges collected from the customers and deposited with the stock exchangers will not be added to the value of the services taking note of the Board s Circular No.B-11/2000-TRU dated 9.7.2001.
Issues:
1. Whether the charges collected by the appellant should form part of the value for the services rendered. Analysis: The appellant, a registered service tax payee under forward contract services, was involved in a dispute regarding the inclusion of charges like Turnover charges and V-SAT Charges in the value of services provided. The Tribunal referred to previous cases to establish that such charges are not akin to commission or brokerage and should not be taxed under that category. Specifically, citing the case of M/s. LSE Securities Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ludhiana, it was held that these charges should not be added to the value of services. The Tribunal also mentioned the case of Saurin Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad, where fixed charges collected from customers and deposited with stock exchangers were not considered part of service value. The decisions were supported by the Board's Circular and previous authorities' actions, leading to the conclusion that the demands should be dropped. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with relief to the appellant. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly.
|
