9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f sub-broker and stock broker is established and transactions are provided to be one and the same - tax paid by a sub-broker may not be denied to be set off against ultimate service tax liability of the stock broker if the stock broker is made liable to service tax for the self same transaction - there is a need to examine the facts whether the amount collected by the appellants is equal to the amounts on which service tax has already been paid by MCX - matter remanded to the original authority for verification of facts in view of the decision Vijay Sharma & Co. v. Commissioner - [2010 (4) TMI 570 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. - ST/1447/2011 - ST/A/324/2012-Cus.(PB) - Dated:- 6-3-2012 - S/Shri S.S. Kang, Mathew John, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not a value of service rendered by them. They rely on the following decisions of the Tribunal in the case of charges levied by Stock Exchanges to support their argument : (i) First Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. CST - 2007 (7) S.T.R. 690 (Tri.-Bang.) (ii) Vijay Sharma Co. v. Commissioner - 2010 (20) S.T.R. 309 (LB). 3. The ld A.R. for Revenue submits that the Appellants have not produced any evidence to show that the amounts in question have been actual amounts collected by MCX and that MCX had paid tax on such charges. It is also the submission of the A.R. that without taking the service of MCX, the appellant could not have provided service to the customer and the services of the MCX is an input service to the appellant so it shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oker may not be denied to be set off against ultimate service tax liability of the stock broker if the stock broker is made liable to service tax for the self same transaction. Such set off depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and subject to verification of evidence as well as rules made under the law w.e.f. 10-9-2004. No set off is permissible prior to this date when sub-broker was not within the fold of law during that period. 5. The above principle is applicable in this case also. However we find that there is a need to examine the facts whether the amount collected by the appellants is equal to the amounts on which service tax has already been paid by MCX. So we remand the matter to the original authority for verificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
