TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax is payable on reimbursable expenses borne by the appellants is not tenable and accordingly rejected – Decided against the Assessee. Commission Agent are exempted for levy of Service Tax under Notification 13/2003 dated 20.06.2013 – Held that:- This exemption is applicable to Commission Agent only - On going through agreement entered into by the appellants with I.B.P/IOC, it has been seen that appellants are providing various services to the appellants and are covered under Clause (i), (iii) & (iv) of the definition of Business Auxiliary Service apart from being Commission Agent. Therefore the benefit of Notification 13/2003 has rightly been denied to appellant – Decided against the Assessee. Limitation – Held that:- Time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 dt . 2.11.07 5. ST/255/08 Sanjay Kumar 72,247 500 v/s 75 1000 v/s 77 100 per day v/s 76 07/03 to 12/04 318/ST/07 dt 22.10.07 Since issue involved in above appeal is common, these appeals are being taken up together for decision. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. I.B.P Company ( I.B.P.) and IOC have set up retail outlets at the different places and have installed at those premises apparatus for storage and delivery of petroleum products and machines for air, cold water and other facilities. For running these outlets for retail sale of petroleum products and to render other services at the said premises, I.B.P/IOC have engaged the appellants as contractors. On invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 Appellants have challenged these orders in the present appeal. 3. Heard Ld. Advocate Ms. Rashi Surekha at length. She submits that appellants have already paid the service tax along with interest on commissions received by them from I.B.P/IOC. Appellant's charges include the payment received from I.B.P/IOC on account of commission, Tea/Coffee/consumable, salary of employees. Similarly Gensets expenses, Bank Charges, Electricity Charges, are reimbursable by the I.B.P/IOC and are borne out by the appellant on behalf of the I.B.P/IOC. She further submits that I.B.P/IOC also pays for handling losses on of the loss of the product to the appellant. The department is demanding service tax on all these charges which is against the provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct 1994 (As it stood prior to its amendment on 10.09.2004), "Business Auxiliary Service" means any service in relation to: (i) promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client; or (ii) promotion or marketing of service provider by the client: or (iii) any customer care service provided on behalf of the client; or (iv) any incidental or auxiliary support service such as billing, collection or recovery or cheques, accounts and remittance, evaluation of prospective customer and public relation services. and includes services as a commission agent, but does not include any information technology service. The scope of the services has been further expanded wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ans any person who acts on behalf of another person and causes sale or purchase of goods, or provision or receipt of services, for a consideration, and includes any person who, while acting on behalf of another person- (i) deals with goods or services or documents of title to such goods or services; or (ii) collects payment of sale price of such goods or services; or (iii) guarantees for collection or payment for such goods or services; or (iv) undertakes any activities relating to such sale or purchase of such goods or services; (b) "information technology service" means any service in relation to designing, developing or maintaining of computer software, or computerised data pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore lower authority. We also note that figures for various charges received by them was given by I.B.P/IOC and not by the appellant. Moreover appellant did not pay service tax and did not file any return. As such extended period is applicable to fact of this case and accordingly penalty is also imposable on the appellants. 8. Appellants relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Intercontinental Consultants Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (29) STR 9 (Del.). We find that in this case Court was examining the vires of Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. In the appeals before as period involved is prior to 2006 and as such ratio of the decision is not applicable to present case. 9. In view of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
