9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 615/- under Section 68(3) read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest at the rate of 18% from the appellant Shri U.S. Choudhary a Stock Broker. In addition, he has also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand of Service Tax and interest from the appellant and the imposition of penalty were ordered on the ground that appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as service provided to an investor. This is not correct. The demand of service tax and interest and imposition of penalty are not warranted. Learned Counsel pleaded that the order be set aside and the appeal allowed. 4. The submissions were resisted by Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, learned Departmental Representative. He supported the impugned order. He stated that while transactions entered into bet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge but different no service tax is attracted as may be seen from the bills covering sales to the appellant by brokers registered with National Stock Exchange, Bombay. Imposition of penalty was not warranted in any case, it is stated. 6. In the note submitted by the Departmental Representative reference has been made to the bye-laws of Uttar Pradesh Stock Exchange Association Ltd. Bye law 205 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e brokers of the same exchange do not have to pay service tax for transactions between themselves but if the transaction is between a member of one stock exchange with a non-member broker who is of another stock exchange service tax is stated to be chargeable. The difference is justified by the department on the ground that the latter transactions involve charging of brokerage which is not the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
