M/S. National Multi Commodity Exchange ... vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Ahmedabad

(Arising out of OIA-207/2013-STC-/SKS/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 07.10.2013, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Ahmedabad)

M/s. National Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri Jigar Shah, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 17.04.2015

ORDER No. A/10346 / 2015 Dated 17.04.2015

Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;

This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. 207/2013-STC-/SKS/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 03.10.2013/ 07.10.2013.

2. Sh. Jigar Shah (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that his clients are registered under Section 65 (105) (zzzzg) of the Finance Act, 1944 for paying Service Tax on the Services provided by them under Commodity Exchange Services. That appellant was under the bonafide belief that service tax under Section 65 (105) (zzzzg) is not payable for the Admission Fees Annual subscription Charges recovered from the customers. That, as soon as the interpretation was brought to the notice of the appellant by the Revenue, the entire service tax on Admission Fees and Annual subscription Charges was paid by the appellant, alongwith interest and even before the issue of show case notice. That appellant is not contesting the issue on merits but penalties can not be imposed as per the provision of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. Sh. S.K. Shukla (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that service tax and interest was paid by the appellant only after the case was detected by the Revenue.

4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed from the case records that the definition of Commodity Exchange Services given under Section 65 (105) (zzzzg) is as follows:-

(105) - Taxable Service means any service provided or to be provided -

(zzzzg)  to any person, by a recognized stock exchange in relation to assisting, regulating or controlling the business of buying, selling or dealing in securities and includes services provided in relation to trading, processing, clearing and settlement of transactions in securities.

4.1. The above definition does not specifically mention Admission Fees or Annual Subscription Fees and appellant harbored a view that service tax on these amounts is not payable under Section 65 (105) (zzzzg). Appellant, therefore,-had reasonable case for not paying Service Tax. However the entire amount along with interest was paid by the appellant before the issue of show case notice. Penalties imposed against the appellant are, therefore, required to be waived as per the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

5. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

(Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court)

(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) .KL

3