TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that demand of service tax prior to 16.05.2008 is not sustainable, and therefore, the demand of Rs. 5,08,592/- that was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority has been set aside. However, the remaining portion of the demand amounting to Rs. 14,10,983/- pertaining to the period from 16.05.2008 onwards has been sustained. The penalty, which was imposed has also been sustained in the said order on account of the fact that the Appellant had collected the service tax but failed to deposit the same in the Government Exchequer. It has also been observed that the Appellant, although registered under the Service Tax Act in respect of other services, failed to mention about collection of servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....viding service from 2006 onwards. The service tax was not leviable on the services of recognized association services upto 15.05.2008 and as such the Appellant did not recover any service tax on turn over charges from its clients. The turnover charges/transaction charges were recovered from the clients during that period and were deposited with the Commodity Exchange treating them as pure reimbursement expenses and as such no service tax was paid for these amount. (ii) That the services of the commodity exchanges came into existence with effect from 16.05.2008, as clarified by CBEC Circular F No. 137/57/2006 CX4 dated 18.05.2007. The Appellant had collected the charges as turnover/transaction charges on behalf of commodity exchanges and r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the service tax amount, and therefore, the order does not suffer from any infirmity. The Commissioner (Appeal) in the impugned order has set aside the demand for the period prior to 16.05.2008. He, therefore, argued for upholding of the impugned order. 6. We have heard learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellant and learned Departmental Representative on behalf of Revenue. 7. The issue involved in this case is regarding the levy of service tax on the turnover/transaction charges which has been imposed on the Appellant under the provisions of Section 65 of the Finance Act. The Appellant does not dispute the liability of payment of service tax after 16.05.2008. However, the Appellant is aggrieved by the non-consideration of its prayer reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g houses are corporate bodies which provide service to investor through a registered member as against to its own members. Thus, though the above stated activities of the Exchanges/clearing houses are in the nature of 'services', they do not fall under the category of any of the existing taxable services." 8. This has also been clarified further by the Circular dated 17 September, 2010. The relevant paragraph 5 is also reproduced as under; "5. From the above it is clear that in case the expense is the liability of the service provider it has to be included in the taxable value. In case it is the liability of the service receiver and the service provider pays the same acting as a pure agent then such amount is not includible in the taxabl....