9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ST/705/2011(PB) - Dated:- 2-9-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Jatin Mahajan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sunil Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. The appellant are subsidiary of Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd. and are registered as Stock Broker with Bombay Stock Exchange. They charge brokerage from the sub-brokers and investors for the sale and purchase of securities listed on stock exchange through them. The appellant have service tax registration and paid service tax on the brokerage charged by them in connection with sale and purchase of securities. In course of audit of their records for the period October, 2002 to March, 2007, the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order-in-appeal dated 21-9-10 set aside the demand of Rs. 1,29,763/- in respect of the excess amount recovered as penalty from sub-brokers and upheld the service tax demand of Rs. 6,86,292/- on the amounts charged for V-SAT connectivity along with interest and also upheld the penalty on the appellant under Section 78. The penalty under Section 76, however, was set aside. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal along with stay application has been filed. 3. Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 4. Shri Jatin Mahajan, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellants pleaded that the appellants are not providing leased circuit services which is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal Representative opposed the appellant s plea for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit by reiterating the Commissioner (Appeals) s findings in the impugned order. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The second demand of Rs. 6,86,292/- is in respect of V-SAT connectivity and the service tax has been demanded on the charges being recovered by the appellant from their sub-brokers and customers. According to the department, the appellant have to be treated as provider of leased circuit services. However, on going through the definition of leased circuit service as given in Section 65(105)(zd) read with Section 65(111) of the Finance Act, 1994, it is clear that this service is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
