Rajan I V vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 332 to 348/2013-ST dated 19/12/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, COCHIN (Appeal). ]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

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

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the 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?

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

Rajan I V 2nd Floor, Sealand Building, Main Road, Taliparamba KANNUR - 670141 KERALA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Calicut CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT, KOZHIKODE, - 673001 KERALA

Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. JOSE JACOB, Advocate #41/3787, 1ST FLOOR, CARMEL CENTRE, BANERJI ROAD, KOCHI - 682018 KERALA For the Appellant

Mr. Pakshi Rajan, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 19/02/2015

Date of Decision: 19/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21028-21029 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

Even though only stay application has been listed, having regard to the fact that the issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the precedent decisions, we take up the appeal itself for final decision after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit.

2. The impugned order has been passed confirming demand of service tax on the share of revenue paid to the appellant for the services jointly provided by the applicant along with M/s. Geojit Commodities Ltd. from April 2006 to September 2006. The demand has been confirmed to the extent of Rs.5,260/- on the ground that appellant is providing Business Auxiliary Services to M/s. Geojit Commodities Ltd.

3. It was submitted that appellant had entered into an agreement to conduct different commodity futures broking and related activities exclusively using the trading right and facilities provided by M/s. Geojit Commodities. It was submitted that in this case M/s. Geojit Commodities had been discharging service tax under the category of forward contract service regularly and if tax were to be collected from the appellant it would amount to taxing the same service twice. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Honble High Court of Kerala in the case of M/s. Speed and Safe Courier Service vs. CCE [2010-TIOL-493-HC-KERALA] and the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vijay Sharma and Co. & Others vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2010-TIOL-1215-CESTAT-DEL-LB] wherein it was laid down that the same service cannot be taxed twice. We find that the submissions made by the appellant are appropriate and find ourselves in agreements with these submissions.

4. In view of the above, the stay applications as well as the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.

(Order pronounced in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

rv 3