TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the assessable value of the taxable service in this case would include the expenses incurred by the appellant while providing the service which were reimbursed by their client - The appellant have not been able to establish prima facie case -Hence, the stay petition is dismissed - Thus, the appellant are directed to deposit the entire amount. - ST/364/2010 - ST/304/2010(PB) - Dated:- 3-12-2010 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ REPRESENTED BY : None, for the Appellant. Shri Amrish Jain, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)] . - The facts leading to this appeal and stay application are, in brief, as under. 1.1 The appellant have service tax registration for providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay on recovery thereof till the disposal of the appeal. 2. None appeared for the appellant though a notice for hearing of this matter had been sent well in time and has been acknowledged by the appellant. In view of this, the matter in accordance with Rule 21 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 is being decided ex parte. 2.1 Shri Amrish Jain, the learned Departmental Representative, opposed the appellant s application for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit of service tax demand, interest and penalty by reiterating the findings of the CCE (Appeals) in the impugned order. He emphasized that during the period of dispute the service tax on the services provided by C F Agent was chargeable on the gross amount charged and the deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss such costs or expenditure have been incurred by the service provider as a pure agent , as defined in this Rule. Under Rule 6 of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, the value of the taxable service in case of the services provided by C F Agent shall include the remuneration or commission, by whatever name called, paid to such agent by the client engaging such agent In this case, prima facie, we find that it is not the case of the appellant that they were acting as pure agent and, therefore, in terms of Rule 5 readwith Rule 6 (viii) of the Valuation Rules, the assessable value, in addition to remuneration or commission, would also include all the expenditure or costs incurred in course of providing the service which were reimbursed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion which may be different from the interpretation which the Rule could have, if it was construed independently of the provisions of the Act. In view of this, when the Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 provides that in case of service provided by the C F Agent, the assessable value would be the gross amount charged and in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the value of the taxable service in relation to services provided by C F Agent to a client is gross amount of remuneration or commission by whatever name called paid to such agent , the expression gross amount of remuneration or commission would have to be interpreted as gross amount paid by the client engaging such agent which would include the expenses incurred for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
