TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3 Stock Broker Services - Transaction charges 6,24,304/- 4 Account opening charges, ID charges, reimbursements, SEBI charges, penalty, interest. 46,01,091/- 5 Business Support Services 11,77,050/- 6 MMR 9,73,350/- 7 On-line Information and Data Base Access or retrieval - Demand on consideration received from clients. 62,04,393/- 8 Demand on reimbursements claimed from NSDL 8,18,756/- 9 Registrar to an issue , Share Transfer Agents - Demand on reimbursement of expenses (A) Demand confirmed under BAS for the period 10.09.2004 to 30.04.2006 (B) Demand confirmed under RTA for the period 01.05.2005 to 31.03.2008. 45,03,517/- 41,29,303/- 10 Banking & other Financial Services - Demand on charges collected from the customers and paid to NSDL. 31,21,434/- 11 Demand on NSR (National Skill Registry) 21,90,061/- 12 Demand on reimbursement of expenses viz postage, stationery. 49,11,209/- 13 Denial of CENVAT credit on VPN 38,82,637/- 14 Denial of CENVAT credit on warehouse rent 12,93,501/- 15 Denial of CENVAT credit on digitization charges 12,05,616/- Total ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....commission or brokerage of sale or purchase of securities. While burden of proof was on Revenue to establish that such receipts were in the nature of commission or brokerage or had the characteristic of such nature that was failed to be discharged. The character of commission or brokerage is remuneration for the service of stock broking provided by a stock broker to investors. Therefore, aforesaid charges realised by appellants were not being of commission or brokerage are not taxable and shall not form part of gross value of taxable service. On merit, all the appellants succeed on the fundamental principles of taxation. Therefore, other contentions on merit made in respective appeals are not considered in this order". By following the decision of LSE Securities (supra), we set aside the demand for Service Tax on the above two components of demand. 6.1 The appellant, being a stock broker had appointed several sub-brokers. To provide the facilities for interconnection of the sub-brokers with the appellant and inturn access the stock exchanges, the appellant made arrangements for a Virtual Private Network (VPN). A part of the cost incurred for VPN by the appellant was recovered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... development and maintenance of software for companies. The appellant started discharging Service Tax liability on such consideration, w.e.f. 16.05.2008 under the category of 'Information Technology Services'. The adjudicating authority has taken the view that w.e.f. 01.06.2007, computer software has been declared as "goods" under the definition of 'Management, Maintenance and Repair Service' (MMRS) service and hence service tax is payable under the said category. 7.2 We have perused the relevant definition prevailing at the relevant time. The service of MMRS basically deals with the maintenance of immovable property. The definition has been amended to include goods also w.e.f. 01.06.2007. But w.e.f. 16.05.2008 a separate category of service has been defined under 'Information Technology Software Service'. It is seen that the nature of activity carried out involves development and maintenance of software. These activities are covered only by the definition of Information Technology Software Service and cannot be brought within the definition of MMRS for the period prior to 16.05.2008. It cannot be said that such activity related to software is includible under MMRS for the prior....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the entire activity has already been discharged by NSDL, the same cannot be demanded from the appellant once again. In this connection, the certificate dated 16.06.2008 issued by NSDL was referred to. Further, it is submitted that an identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant in the case of S. V. Engineering Constructions vs. CC, CE&ST, Guntur-2016 (11) TMI 108 (CESTAT Hyderabad). 8.3. Ld. AR for the Revenue justified the impugned order. He submitted that for the activities carried out, the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax. Any Service Tax paid by the appellant can be availed as cenvat credit on input service by the main contractor i.e. NSDL. Hence, he submitted that the appellant cannot be exempted from payment of Service Tax only for the reason that main contractor has already remitted the Service Tax. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, we find that the issue involved in the present case has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant in the case of S. V. Engineering Constructions (supra). The Tribunal in the above case observed as follows: "V) The total value of work executed by the Appellant for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant cannot be called upon to pay Service Tax once again. This is also applicable for the reimbursement. Further, it s seen that the issue regarding Service Tax liability on the reimbursement has also been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the appellant in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (3) TMI 357 (SC). In view of the above, we find no justification for the levy of Service Tax on the reimbursement which is set aside. 9.1 The appellant acted as Registrar to an issue as well as Share Transfer Agent. These activities were liable to Service Tax under the category of Registrar and Share Transfer Agents Service w.e.f. 01.05.2006. The appellant, in addition to the commission, also received reimbursement of expenses such as postage, stationary etc. incurred for sending information to share holders. Such amounts were reimbursed to them without markup. The Department was of the view that Service Tax is required to be paid on such reimbursement of expenses. Demands were raised under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' (BAS) for the period 10.09.2004 to 30.04.2006 and under the category of RTA for the subsequent peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant, which was inturn remitted to NSDL, on which they have already discharged Service Tax cannot be levied to Service Tax in the hands of the appellant. We find no reason to take a different stand in respect of the amount pertaining to National Skill Registry. 11.4 By following the decision in the case of S. V. Engineering Constructions (supra), we set aside the demand for Service Tax on this ground. We also set aside the demand raised under the same heading for reimbursement of expenses such as postage, stationary etc. incurred for sending the information to share holders. 12. As discussed earlier, the appellant set up a VPN for connecting the sub-brokers with itself and also for maintaining the connection with the Stock Exchanges. The Service Tax paid on the VPN rent was availed as cenvat credit on input service. The Department sought to deny such cenvat credit by taking the view that the service is not directly in relation to the output service i.e. Stock Broking Service. We find considerable force in the stand taken by the appellant. The trading of security in the stock exchange is being carried out only through electronic means by establishing on-line connection to....