9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that: - the amendment came in the Service Tax Determination of Valuation Rules, 2006 w.e.f. 18.4.2006. Prior to it, the appellant is entitled for the benefit but the same was not provided by the lower authority. However, post period to 18.4.2006, the appellant is liable to pay the service tax on the “over and above” amount collected from the clients but not deposited to the Govt. exchequer - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (April 2004 to September, 2009), the appellant was working as a stock broker in the security exchange. In the present appeal, the dispute is regarding the amount collected from the client other than the commission and brokerage. The department brought that amount under the over and above heading of Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value Rules), 2006. The same was confirmed by order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Jain, ld. Counsel for the department submits that the amendment was made on 18.4.2006 in the said rules where over and above was brought to the tax which was not deposited in the Govt. Exchequer. Hence, the lower authority has rightly brought in the clutches of service tax by the Revenue. He further submits that as per Rule 5(2) of Service Tax (Determination o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he clients but not deposited to the Govt. exchequer. In this context, the Board has issued Circular No.187/107/2010-CX-4 dated 17th Sept. 2010, where it was observed that: 4. Since the stamp duty and Security Transaction Tax, are the liability of the buyer/seller of securities and the broker pays the same acting as a pure agent the same are not includible in the taxable amount in terms of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
