Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1242 - AT - Service TaxGTA service - composite agreement - The claim of the appellant is that as per agreement, the transportation, packing, loading and unloading services are separate, for which independent charges were recovered - Held that: - Tribunal in the case of Jain Carrying Corporation V/s CCE, Jaipur 2014-TIOL-3069-CESTAT-DEL observed that where in the composite agreement, services are mentioned differently then each service will have to be charged separately for the purpose of Service Tax - The Tribunal observed that when by the composite agreement, three different services were awarded to the appellant then admittedly, the services falling under different Clauses separate. But fact remains these judgments were delivered before the date when the negative list came into existence i.e. 1st July, 2012. Hence by following the ratio laid down in the above mentioned cases we uphold that prior to 01/07/2012 the services, though mentioned in a composite agreement, will have to be treated differently as they were mentioned separately and along with the table of the charges - After 01/7/2012 the issue will have to be examined afresh by the adjudicating authority but by providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant. Valuation - reimbursement of bill expenses - Held that: - In the show cause notice, the service tax was demanded on ‘reimbursable expenses’ under Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination Value) Rules, 2006 from the Appellant. But fact remains that Rule 5(1) has been assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr V/s M/s Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-76-SC where the said Rule was declared ultra vires to the Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 - When the said provision has been declared ultra vires then no demand can be raised - demand set aside. Utilisation of CENVAT credit - credit utilised for payment of Service Tax - Held that: - the authority will have to examine the genuineness of the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 3.71 Cr. Only. In this regard, it is evident that Service Tax on storage and warehousing charges was being paid prior to VCES period and also declared and paid during VCES period through declaration, which has been held as correct in the impugned order - penalty also not leviable. Personal penalty on Directors - Held that: - When the service tax liability is remanded then the question of levy of the personal penalty on the directors is also remanded to the adjudicating authority for adjudication. Appeal allowed in part.
|