9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 25.03.2009. This Order-in-Appeal was passed against Order-in-Original dated 28.08.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal-II. The appellant was providing services of a Clearing and Forwarding agent to M/s Lafarge India Limited. As per the contract, the appellant was getting their remune ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identical issue vide show cause notice No. 652 dated 24.04.2007 covering the period October, 2001 to March, 2002 alleging suppression and hence the Revenue cannot invoke suppression clause one more time for the same issue. They have also claimed that the department has been kept informed (with a copy of the agreement with M/s Lafarge India Limited) that service tax is being discharged only the va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 fails. 5. To decide the merits of the issue, the valuation of taxable services is to be determined with reference to Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. For ready reference Section 76 (1) as it stood at the relevant time is extracted below: "Section 67(1) Subject to the provisions of this ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has not satisfied the conditions prescribed in Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 to satisfy the criteria for a pure agent. We find no reason to defer from that view and hence uphold the merits of the order. However, the demand will need to be reworked out for the normal time limit under Section 73. Consequently the various penalties imposed on the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
