9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not? - Held that:- This Bench, following the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of First Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2007 (6) TMI 33 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] has held that handling charges and transaction charges as not part of the taxable value as additional brokerage for service tax purpose - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposed demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 1,16,61,787/- with interest thereon and also imposed penalty of ₹ 1,20,00,000/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence this appeal. 2. On 26.02.2018, when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Counsel, Shri G. Natarajan submitted that the transaction charges are levied under the 'Securities Control Regulatin Act and SEBI Guidelines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation. He places reliance on Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (32) STR 49 (Tri.-LB), wherein it has been held what is charged as a quid pro quo for the services provided alone can be subjected to service tax. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR, Shri Veerabhadra Reddy, JC, supports the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5. We find that the matter is nolonger res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants are collecting the said charges from their clients and remitting the same to the concerned stock exchange cannot be a reason for considering such amounts as received by them for services rendered by them . We find that this is the very ratio that has been laid down in the Tribunal decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel. " 6. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to deviate from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
