Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 121 - CESTAT ALLAHABADLevy of service tax - amount realised as reimbursement of expenses from the principals - period 2009-10 to 2013-14 - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The present case is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs Intercontinental Consultant & Technocrats (P) Ltd [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] whereby the issue stands decided in favor of the Appellant as the disputed period in the present case is from 2009-10 to 2013-14 only for which it has been held that service tax is not leviable prior to 14.04.2015. It is also found that Reimbursement expenses are in relation to Freight Charges, Courier charges, Loading & unloading charges/ Local cartage, Printing & Stationery charges, Legal Expenses, Interest on investment and Misc expenses against copies of agreements with the principals and approves that these expenses are in the nature of reimbursement only - the disputed amounts being 'reimbursement’ are not includible in the taxable value and the conclusions drawn by the Ld. Commissioner is not tenable factually and legally, as per the judgment of the Larger Bench in Sri Bhagavathy Traders Vs CCE [2011 (8) TMI 430 - CESTAT, BANGALORE-LB]. Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- Since records for the period October 2009 to March 2011 were taken for audit in August 2011 it is presumed that records up to September 2009 were taken for audit in July 2010 and earlier audits, as aforesaid. It is not a case of department that material facts of recovering reimbursement were not reflected in records for earlier period. Such information was available in records and audit had not taken any adverse observation thereon during past audits. Department therefore, is not justified to hold that the Appellant has suppressed facts. Facts of recovering reimbursement were reflected in books of account audited by audit team in past, as well. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
|