CEA No.130 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CEA No.130 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: February 22, 2010 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ...APPELLANT CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S N.K. CHUGH & CO. ...RESPONDENT STA No.1 of 2009 M/S UNIQUE INVESTMENT CENTRE ...APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ...RESPONDENT CHANDIGARH STA No.2 of 2009 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ...APPELLANT COMMISSIONERATE, CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S VIJAY SHARMA AND COMPANY, ...RESPONDENT CHANDIGARH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. PRESENT: MR. KAMAL SEHGAL, SR. PANEL COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) 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 CEA No.130 of 2008 -2- 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 M/s Unique Investment Centre vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, the Tribunal has held as under:- “In Vijay Sharma & company vs. 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 in curium.” As there are conflicting decisions of the same Tribunal on the point in issue, therefore, we allows 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. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE February 22, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) Gulati JUDGE