Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Jsel Securities Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-I on 11 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Appeal No. ST/640/2012-CU(DB)
ST/1405/2011-CU(DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 18(AKJ)ST/JPR-I/2012 dated 16.02.2012 & 265(DKV)ST/JPR-I/2011 dated 17.06.2011, by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Jaipur].
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Jsel Securities Ltd.
M/s. Guru Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd. .Applicants
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-I .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S.K. Sarwali, Advocate for the Applicants Ms. Neha Garg, DR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 11.11.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 55286-55287/2016-CU(DB) Per Archana Wadhwa:
Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved in both of them is identical.
2. After hearing both the sides we find that the issue to be decided is whether amount realized by the appellant, who are share brokers, in the name of transaction charges or turn over charges which they remit to the stock exchange are required to be formed part of the transaction value or not.
3. We find that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Tribunals decision in the case of LSE Securities Ltd. Vs. CCE Ludhiana 2013 (29) STR 591 (Tri-Del) vide which the appellants appeal involving the same issue was also disposed of by holding that turn over charges do not form the part of the value of the services so as to levy service tax on the same.
4. By following the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant.
[Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court]
(V. Padmanabhan) (Archana Wadhwa)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
ST/1405/2011-CU(DB)