75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

June 2016

2016 (42) S.T.R., 50 (Tri. Mumbai) C.S.T., Mumbai-I vs. Bluechip Corporate Investment Centre Ltd.

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
The amount received as consideration should be considered as cum-tax amount unless the amount of tax is recovered separately.
Facts

The respondent received commission on the sale of bonds of RBI. No service tax was charged on the commission amount. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax considering the commission received as inclusive of service tax. The department filed an appeal contesting that no evidence was provided to prove that amount received was inclusive of service tax and the decision in the case of Agro Industries Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2007 (210) E.L.T. 183 (SC) was relied upon and it was provided that the judgement in case of Advantage Media Consultant-2008 (10) S.T.R. 49 (Tri-Mumbai) was incorrectly relied by first appellate authority.

Held
Tribunal observed that service tax was not separately charged on the commission during the relevant time and since Supreme Court has dismissed the department’s appeal against the judgement in case of Advantage Media Consultant-2008 (10) S.T.R. 49 (Tri-Mumbai), the Revenue’s appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Whether payment of transaction charges to stock exchange amounts TO FTS – SecTION 194J – Part – I

[2016] 68 taxmann.com 280 (Mumbai-CESTAT) – Lavino Kapur Cottons (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II