9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) No. 110/2010 dated 23.08.2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant admittedly has done sub-broking activities during the disputed period 10.9.2004 to 31.12.2004 during which period sub-broker was also covered under the definition of broker in terms of Section 65(101) of Finance Act, 1994. 4. The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs.32,792/- along with interest and imposed penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given relief on the ground that there was no specific identification that the amount payable on sub-broking activities by the appellant has been paid by the main broker. 6. Learned SDR reiterates the findings and order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. Inasmuch as the appellant has produced the documents claiming that the main broke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
