Commissioner of Central Excise vs N.K. Chugh and Co.

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—This order shall dispose of CEA No. 130 of 2008 and STA No. 1 of 2009 and STA No. 2 of 2009, as common questions of law arise in these three appeals.

The short question for consideration in these appeals is whether the service provided by sub-brokers are covered under the ambit of service tax and are taxable or not? The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ''the Tribunal'') in CEA No. 130 of 2008, has held that sub-brokers are not liable to pay any Service tax as the same has already been paid by the main stock broker. Similar view has been taken in STA No. 2 of 2009. However, in STA No. 1 of 2009 (2008) 15 STJ 461 , the Tribunal has held as under:

In Vijay Sharma & Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh (supra), it was observed that, levy will fall only on the main broker who "handled" sale and purchase of securities in stock exchange. It is clear that the Tribunal overlooked the import of the term "in connection with" in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (105). The decision would appear to have been rendered per incuriam.

As there are conflicting decisions of the same Tribunal on the point in issue, therefore, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and remand the case back to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh in view of the amendment.

We direct that a Larger Bench be constituted of the Tribunal for deciding the question involved in the present case.

Appeal disposed of.