Tribunal rules on service tax, credit reversal, and penalties in recent decision.

M/s. Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate

M/s. Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate - TMI Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Service tax demand on Late Payment charges collected.
2. Credit reversal under Rule 6 of Credit Rules - imposition of Penalty.
3. Demand of Service Tax on trading of scrips on own account.
4. Service tax demand on reimbursement of expenses from group companies on cost sharing basis.
5. Penalty imposed on the demands confirmed in the impugned order.

Service tax demand on Late Payment charges collected:
The Appellant, a provider of stock broking service, was issued a show-cause notice demanding Service Tax on Late Payment Charges collected. The Appellant argued that these charges are penal in nature to deter clients from delayed payments. They cited a Tribunal decision stating that penal charges for contract violation do not constitute taxable service. The Tribunal found this argument applicable and held the demand unsustainable, referencing a Supreme Court decision withdrawal as well.

Credit reversal under Rule 6 of Credit Rules - imposition of Penalty:
The Appellant accepted the demand for non-reversal of credit under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and paid the amount along with interest promptly. They argued against the imposition of penalties due to no fraud or willful suppression. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant had paid the tax amount with interest before the notice was issued, hence setting aside the penalties imposed.

Demand of Service Tax on trading of scrips on own account:
The demand was based on the Appellant engaging in trading of scrips on their own account, considered an exempted service. The Appellant contended that they should only reverse proportional credit attributable to common input services. The Tribunal found the Appellant's action of reversing proportional credit in line with a High Court decision and held the penalty not imposable due to lack of suppression of fact findings.

Service tax demand on reimbursement of expenses from group companies on cost sharing basis:
The Appellant claimed expenses as reimbursement from sister companies on a cost-sharing basis. They argued that such reimbursements do not constitute taxable service. Citing various decisions, the Tribunal held the demand unsustainable as the Ld. Commissioner did not address the submissions made.

Penalty imposed on the demands confirmed:
The Appellant argued against the penalties imposed, stating no fraud or suppression of fact was involved. They relied on a Tribunal decision to support their claim. The Tribunal found no suppression of fact findings in the impugned order and held the penalties imposed unsustainable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable on demands related to Late Payment charges, trading of scrips on own account, and reimbursement of expenses. However, the demand related to credit reversal under Rule 6, where duty and interest were already paid, was confirmed. The penalties imposed were deemed unsustainable, and the order was modified accordingly.