Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1574 - AT - Service TaxValuation - includibility - reimbursable expenses - charges collected under the heads A.R-4 expenses - DBK Charges - DEEC Endorsement Charges etc. - whether reimbursable expenses are includible in taxable value or not? - Held that: - the issue is settled in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Versus M/s. Sangamitra Services Agency [2013 (7) TMI 862 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that Various expenditure includible in the taxable value of Carrying and Forwarding service were reimbursed by the principals on the basis of actuals - the demand on reimbursable expenses is neither legal nor proper and requires to be set aside. The amount, if any, collected over and above the actual would not fall under CHA Services - demand unsustainable - decided in favor of appellant. Business Auxiliary Services - demand on incentive received from Shipping Liner - Held that: - the issue decided in the case of M/s. Indo Lloyd Freight Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2017 (8) TMI 400 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that the activity of the appellant as a custom house agent is to provide services to importers/exporters and the disputed activity was only a facility arranged by them to their clients. The appellant has no obligation to arrange transport of cargo through a particular shipping liner. Therefore, the amount received cannot fall within the category of commission so as to be subjected to levy of service tax - demand under Business Auxiliary Services set aside. The learned counsel for appellant has also put forward the grievance that the Commissioner has not taken note of the amounts paid by the appellant - That appellant would be able to establish with documents that entire liability has been discharged before the issuance of show-cause notice - matter is remanded for such re-examination. Penalty u/s 76 and 78 - Held that: - the appellant has discharged substantial portion of the demand even prior to issuance of show-cause notice - though it is alleged that appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of tax, there is no specific evidence to prove the same - penalties set aside. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
|