9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- along with interest deposited during the course of investigation. 2. Briefly, stated the facts in brief giving rise to the instant lis are that the petitioner is a service provider in the category of Stock Broker Services and registered with the respondent-Department. The department conducted an investigation against the petitioner in the month of May, 2004 alleging non-payment of service tax on the various charges i.e. transaction charges, stamp duty, BSE charges and SEBI fees etc., which revealed that during the period from December, 2000 to March, 2004, petitioner has recovered transaction charges from its sub-brokers, which were shown as income in the books of account and service tax was paid. However, in addition to the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ially allowed the appeal vide order dated October 29, 2007. He extended the benefit of cum-tax-value under Section 67(2) of the Act and set aside the demand of Rs. 1,04,207/-. Further, Penalty imposed vide order-in-original was also set aside by Commissioner (Appeals), in view of the deposit of amount prior to the service of show cause notice. 4. Dissatisfied with an order passed in appeal, petitioner challenged the same by way of appeal before learned Tribunal qua confirmation of demand of service tax. The department also challenged the said order before the learned Tribunal who vide its order dated May 7, 2012 allowed the appeal filed by petitioner and set aside the impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals); ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p;15,00,000/- has been allowed but petitioner in the facts and circumstances is not entitled to interest on the amount so deposited by it on April 29, 2005, which cannot be termed to be pre-deposit. Moreover, Section 35F of the Act only talks about refund of pre-deposit deposited with the adjudicating authority. 7. Having elaborately heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record available, we find substance in the contentions putforth by learned counsel for the petitioner and submissions made by learned counsel for respondent to be of no legal weight. 8. Undeniably, respondent/department conducted an investigation against petitioner alleging non-payment of service tax on the various charges. During investigation, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
