Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + Commissioner Service Tax - 2013 (3) TMI Commissioner This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 354 - Commissioner - Service TaxValuation - Classification of services - Re-imbursement expenses - inclusion in the gross value - Extended Period of Limitation - Held that:- appellant received was service charges for the services such as supervision, management and execution of cable laying and associated works which has been rightly classified by the appellants themselves under ‘consulting engineer service’ and had paid appropriate service tax. Handling and transporting the materials is not at all a part of such consulting engineering services. Similarly it is seen that LAA had held that the appellant is liable to pay service tax under “Erection, Commissioning and Installation service”. This is beyond the scope of the SCN as there was no proposal in the SCN agitating the classification of the taxable services rendered and had not discussed as for what reasons the activities of the appellant cannot be considered as alleged in the SCN i.e. handling charges. - the lower adjudicating authority had traversed beyond the scope of the show cause notice and on that score alone the impugned order could be set aside. Regarding reimbursement of expenses - The appellant submitted that the handling and transportation charges paid to the appellant by BSNL has got no connection with the services rendered by the appellant to BSNL. These amounts are paid by BSNL for the specific purpose of handling and transporting the materials from BSNL to the site of work. - held that:- concur with the appellant that as they are rendering services in the category of consulting engineering services, handling and transporting the materials is not at all a part of such consulting engineering services. Regarding extended period of limitation - held that:- the appellant is a government enterprise and there cannot exist any intention to evade the service tax liability as claimed by them and hold that the entire Show Cause Notice is time-barred and hence the demand is not maintainable. - Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector v. Chemphar Drugs (1989 (2) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) followed - Demand and penalty set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.
|