9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er: Ramesh Nair This issue involved in the present case is that: A- Whether the Service Provided by the Sub-Broker of main Stock-broker is branded Service and not eligible for small scale exemption up to aggregate gross value of Rs. 4 Lakhs in the financial year. B- Whether the Service provided by Sub-broker of Stock-Broker is per se liable to Service Tax or otherwise. 2. Shri. Vipul Khandhar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the Service Tax. It was also clarified that even the Sub-broker should not be charged to Service Tax as commission agent under Business Auxiliary Service. He placed reliance on the following judgment's: * PREMIER INVESTMENTS Vs. CCE & ST, MANGALORE, 2016 (46) STR 591 (Rri.-Bang.) * AMH TRADE SERVICE Vs. CCE, CUS & ST. CALICUT, 2015 (39) STR 333 (Tri. Bang) * CCE, CHANDIGARH, VS. N.K. CH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We find that the appellant is acting as a commission agent on behalf of the Stock-broker, the entire deal of Stock trading is between Stock broker and ultimate client. In this fact it cannot be said that the appellant's service is a branded service. Moreover, the appellant is providing services to the Stock-broker the issue of service being branded could arise only when branded service is provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
