2015 (10) TMI 2000

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- along with interest and penalties was confirmed on the ground that the appellant had received an amount of Rs. 1,04,42,000/- from M/s. Zealous Financial Services (P) Ltd. as commission during the period 2007-08 for mobilising customers to invest in LIC Index Nifty Fund (LIC) and therefore was liable to pay service tax under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) but did not do so. 2. The appellant has essentially contended that (i) it was an agent of M/s. Zealous Financial Services (P) Ltd., M/s. Zealous Financial Services (P) Ltd. was a LIC distributor and got brokerage from LIC out of which M/s. Zealous Financial Services (P) Ltd. gave mutually pre-agreed brokerage to the appellant for providing service of distribution of mutual fund and t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....usion about the taxability of service rendered by the appellant. 4. As the matter was heard extensively, both parties agreed that the appeal can be disposed of. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the appeal waiving the requirement of pre-deposit. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that the appellant was receiving commission only for mobilising customers to invest in LIC Index Nifty Fund through M/s. Zealous Financial Services (P) Ltd. It was not in any way acting as an agent of M/s. Zealous Financial Services (P) Ltd. Indeed the appellant has not given any documentary evidence to the effect that it was a mutual fund distributor or agent thereof. The appellant was not registered as a mutual fund distributor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant was covered under BAS [Section 65 (19) of Finance Act, 1994]. CESTAT judgement in the case of Raj Ratan Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur [2012 (25) STR 481 (Tri.  Del.)] is not applicable in the present case because in that case, the commission was earned by a mutual fund distributor while the appellant was not a mutual fund distributor. Indeed vide letter dated 18.10.2010, the appellant had admitted that it was a commission agent and was availing the benefit of Notification No.13/2003-ST, which exempted BAS rendered by a commission agent from the whole of service tax. Obviously, with the rescinding of the said exemption Notification, the appellant became liable to pay service tax. 6. The fact that the appellant was availing ....