TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aged in the business of trading of securities as a stock broker and is a registered member of the National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. The respondent is a depository participant for two depositories, namely National Securities Depository Limited [NSDL] and Central Securities Depository Limited [CSDL] and provides depository services to customers by way of entering into agreements with customers on behalf of NSDL and CSDL for keeping their securities in their respective accounts in dematerialized form. A depository is an organization where securities of a shareholder are kept at their request in Electronic Form through medium of Depository Participant. 3. For such depository services, the respondent is recovering certain fee/c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir clients through its sub brokers in Jammu and Kashmir; v. Inadmissible CENVAT Credit on account of medical insurance of the employees of the respondent. 7. The department has filed by the present appeal against order challenging the dropping of demand only with respect to the above two issues at serial numbers (i) and (ii). 8. In regard to the first issue, the finding recorded by the Commissioner is as follows: " 81. (a) I find that the para 2.4.3 of the said instructions clarifies that the taxable value is the fee charged for providing custodial services. It further clarifies that service tax is not leviable on NSDL/CDSL fees paid to the depositories. I thus find that the argument of the notice that service tax is not leviable on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o conclude that the demand on this issue is not sustainable. " 9. The contention of Ms. Jaya Kumari, learned authorized representative of the department is that the Circular dated 23.08.2007 did not contain any interpretation of a new levy so as to be prospective and infact only reiterated the earlier clarification provided in the Circular dated 18.12.2002. Thus, Circular dated 23.08.2007, which is relied upon in the show cause notice, will be applicable retrospectively and will automatically take care of the Circular dated 18.12.2002. Hence service tax is payable on the NSDL and CSDL fee for the period April 2006 to August 2007 and the Commissioner erred in dropping the demand. 10. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f law that an oppressive Circular should be given only prospective effect. 13. This apart, unless the terms of a Statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a Statue so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability. 14. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department also contended that the decision of the Tribunal in Milind Kulkarni Vs CCE-Pune-1 [2016 (44) STR 71 (Tri-Mumbai)] which was relied upon by the Commissioner to drop the demand, had been appealed by the department before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8204-8207 of 2016, wherein the Supreme Court after condoning the delay issued notice. Thus, the is....