9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company was incorporated during 2004 and they obtained their Centralized Registration during August, 2004 under MRA and BAS. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during Audit of Accounts of the appellant by the Officers of the Internal Audit of Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai it was found that the appellant had not included the reimbursement of salary and other contributions to the tune of Rs. 25,30,694/- paid by their clients for the supply of manpower undertaken by them for the period from 16-6-2005 to January, 2006 in the value of taxable service for the purpose of payment of service tax. It was also noticed that after the said period, they started paying service tax on such salary and contributions paid to their personnel and rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the penalty were made by the appellant within thirty days of Communication of this impugned OIO. 3. Aggrieved, the appellant had filed this appeal mainly on the following grounds :- (i) that the LAA has confirmed the demand of service tax and also justified the imposition of penalty on appellant on the only ground that there was no interpretation of law involved. This finding of the adjudicating authority is clearly in conflict with the clarifications issued by the Board in the following Circulars :- (1) In F.No. B43/1/97, dated 6-6-1997, it was clarified, in respect of customs house agent's service and steamer agents service, that reimbursements of expenses were not chargeable to service tax. (2) In F.No. 343/5/97, dated 2-7-1997, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1994 read with Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006; (iv) that they had produced the copies of invoices raised on the customer viz. M/s. Hutchison Essar South Ltd., Chennai, which clearly indicate the amounts as reimbursable expenses incurred at the customer's instance. No verification or enquiry was made by the department. In the absence of any evidence contrary to the above, the rejection of the evidence on record and finding of the adjudicating authority that appellant did not provide any evidence cannot be a valid ground for demand of service tax. 4. Personal Hearing was held and Sri V. Ravindran, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted that :- (a) the salary paid directly to the labourers should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
