9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant’s own case [2008 (11) TMI 82 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], after considering the Board’s circular and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on merit, held against the assessee. Period of dispute in the present case is prior to the circular dated 16.4.2010. On a query from the Bench, the learned counsel submits that the demand of tax in the present case is within the normal period of limitation. Hence the applicant failed to make out a strong prima facie case for waiver of predeposit of entire amount of dues. - stay order modified - Partial stay granted. - ST/108/2011 - Misc. Order No.41264 & 41265/2014 - Dated:- 7-8-2014 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri R. Periasami, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent may proceed with the quantification but orders regarding recovery will be issued after notice is served and the respondent enters appearance. He submits that the Hon ble High Court for the earlier period stayed the recovery and therefore in the present case there should not be any order for predeposit as the same issue is pending before the Hon ble High Court. He further submits that Revenue also filed appeal before the Hon ble High Court against the Tribunals final order. By order dated 28.6.2009, the Hon ble High Court in M.P. No. 1 of 2009 in CMA No. 1459/2009 (Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Suprasesh General Insurance Services Brokers Pvt. Ltd.) while admitting the appeal dismissed the miscellaneous application filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the dues and there is a temporary stay of the recovery. The matter was adjourned on several occasions and by Note Sheet order dated 2.6.2014, this Bench directed the learned special counsel to verify the latest position before the Hon ble High Court. We find that the Tribunal in the earlier order, in the applicant s own case, after considering the Board s circular and the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, on merit, held against the assessee. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- 11. Let us now examine the nature of the subject transactions having regard to the legal character of reinsurance . Under a contract of insurance between the insured (LRDE, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... einsurer. This is precisely what happened in the present case. In one instance of reinsurance, as already noted, an amount of ₹ 21,01,200/- out of original premium of ₹ 25.50 lakhs was ceded by the Indian insurer (the reinsured) to the overseas reinsurer under the contract of reinsurance brokered by the assessee. The overseas reinsurer allowed 20% discount to the Indian insurer on the ceded premium amount of ₹ 21,01,200/-, which amounted to ₹ 4,20,240/-, 50% of which was passed on to the Indian insurer (the reinsured) as ceding commission and the remaining half was retained by the reinsurance broker (assessee) as reinsurance brokerage or commission. This brokerage was the remuneration received by the assessee for arr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission in Indian currency to an Indian service provider by a foreign company vide Final Order No. 452/2007 dated 20-4-2007 in ETA Travel Agency case (supra). Para 9.4 of the said final order, which contains the ratio of our decision with reference to the apex Court s judgment in J.B. Bodas case, reads as follows :- xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx Following the above view, we reject the contention of the appellants that they should be deemed to have received reinsurance brokerage in convertible foreign exchange. It is noted that the period of dispute in the present case is prior to the circular dated 16.4.2010. On a query from the Bench, the learned counsel submits that the demand of tax in the present case is within the normal period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
