TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been challenged on merits as well as on limitation. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I note that the appellants were paying Service tax under Rule 6.of The Service tax Rules, 1994 on the remuneration which, they had been receiving from their principals as acknowledged in the show cause notice itself. The SCN, however, noted that, apart the remuneration, certain charges were also received by the appellants from their principals towards freight, labour, electricity, telephone etc. The SCN alleged that, under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6(8) of the Service tax Rules, 1994, these charges also required to be added to the taxable value of the service rendered by the appellants as clearing and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principals in connection with the service rendered by the former can enter into the taxable value under Rule 6(8) of the Service tax Rules read with Section 67 of the Finance Act. It is submitted that there was nothing in the relevant agency agreement to in that any such charges formed part of the remuneration/commission payable/paid to the appellants by their principals for the service of clearing and forwarding of excisable goods. Ld. Counsel relies on the Trade Notice No. 87/97 dated 14-7-97 of the Madurai-II Commissionerate, wherein the taxability of commission or remuneration received by a C F agent from their principal was clarified. Reliance has also been placed on the Tribunal's decision in Sri Sastha Agencies Pvt. Ltd v. Asst. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eet the actual expenses incurred in connection with clearing and forwarding of excisable goods were also to be added to the taxable value of the service. This case of the Revenue was clearly beyond the scope of Rule 6(8) ibid as held by the Tribunal in the case of Sri Sastha Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and a plethora of other cases considered therein. As rightly pointed out by ld. counsel, in the case of Mett Macdonald (supra), what was considered by the Tribunal was Consulting Engineer's service, for which there was no specific rule defining taxable value/gross amount. Apparently, in that case, the Bench went by Section 67 and held that certain expenses incurred by the assessee and reimbursed to them by their principal were also t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
