2018 (5) TMI 1228 - AT - Service Tax

Liability of service tax - sub-broker - receipt of Commission form main broker - Held that - the identical issue has come up in the case of Vijay Sharma & Company V/s Commissioner, Chandigarh 2010 (4) TMI 570 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where the matter was remanded to the Original Authority - matter remanded to the Original Authority with the similar direction as mentioned in the above mentioned case - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal restoration and hearing on merit, challenge against Order-in-Appeal No. 16/2011 dated 19/01/2011, service tax demand on sub broker for commission received, application of precedent from Vijay Sharma & Company case.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi, delivered by Justice Dr. Satish Chandra and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical), involved multiple key issues. Firstly, the Tribunal recalled its previous order dated 19/07/2017, where the appeal was dismissed, and restored the appeal to its original number, allowing the ROA Application. Subsequently, with the consent of both parties, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the appeal on its merits. The appeal in question was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 16/2011 dated 19/01/2011, concerning a dispute spanning 2004-2006. The appellant, a sub broker engaged in the sale and purchase of mutual funds and receiving commission from the main broker, faced a demand for service tax from the Department, leading to the filing of the present appeal.

During the proceedings, Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the appellant, and Shri A.K. Singh, DR for the Revenue, presented their arguments. Upon careful consideration and examination of the records, the Tribunal noted that a similar issue had arisen in the case of Vijay Sharma & Company v/s Commissioner, Chandigarh 2014 (4) TMI 570-LB CESTAT, New Delhi, where the matter was remanded to the Original Authority. Given the identical nature of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal, in line with its previous decision, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Original Authority with directions consistent with the aforementioned case. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by way of remand, bringing the proceedings to a conclusion. The order was dictated and pronounced in the open court, ensuring transparency and adherence to due process.