Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1477 - AT - Service TaxDemand alongwith interest and penalties - Clearing & Forwarding Agents (C&FA) Service - service tax not paid - appellant contended that it was not providing C&FA service, but was providing Cargo Handling Service (CHS) and that the reimbursements of expenses towards loading/unloading/transportation should not have been included in the assessable value and the service tax is leviable only on the commission it received @ Re. 1/- PMT. It also stated that it had bona fide belief about its non-liability to service tax. Held that:- from the definition of C&F Agent and terms and conditions of C&F contract signed by the appellant with M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd., it is evident that the service rendered by the appellant is covered under C&F Agent service. Indeed, it is such a good fit that it hardly leaves any room for ambiguity or confusion or doubt. Therefore, it could not have been the bona fide belief of the appellant that the service rendered was not taxable. It is seen that the appellant itself took registration only in the year 2003 as provider of C&FA service and still did not pay the impugned service tax pertaining to the subsequent period. In the present case, to reiterate, there was no scope for confusion or ambiguity or doubt. As regards the contention that the reimbursement of expenses by the service recipient should be deducted from the assessable value, we find that the service rendered by the appellant as seen from the terms and conditions of the C&F contract is entirely covered within the scope of C&FA service and the payment in the name of reimbursements was not of the actual expenses; the so called reimbursements were on PMT basis as was the commission. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal as far as the demand of service tax and interest is concerned. However, penalty under Section 76 ibid is set aside and penalty under Section 78 ibid is reduced to 25% - Decided partly in favour of appellant
|