https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440270 CESTAT Hyderabad held that service tax collected on behalf of principals but not supported by evidence of remittance fell within the statutory obligation under section 73A(2) and section 73A(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, so the confirmed demand on that amount was sustained. As to the business auxiliary service commission and alleged trading profit component, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not produced documentary evidence before it on whether the receipts represented trading profit or steamer agent activity, and remanded that part to the adjudicating authority for fresh examination after permitting evidence to be placed on record. The demand was therefore upheld in part and remanded in part. en-us Thu, 13 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jul 2023 08:14:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440270 CESTAT Hyderabad held that service tax collected on behalf of principals but not supported by evidence of remittance fell within the statutory obligation under section 73A(2) and section 73A(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, so the confirmed demand on that amount was sustained. As to the business auxiliary service commission and alleged trading profit component, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not produced documentary evidence before it on whether the receipts represented trading profit or steamer agent activity, and remanded that part to the adjudicating authority for fresh examination after permitting evidence to be placed on record. The demand was therefore upheld in part and remanded in part. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 13 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440270