TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al cases are held to be non-sustainable and the subject demands are held as time barred on the face of the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. In other words, the show-cause notices issued to these appellants do not fulfil the criteria provided in Section 73(4) of the Finance Act, 1994. The facts in respect of these two appellants do not come within the mischief of provisions of Section 73(4) of the Finance Act, 1994. When we have held above that subject demands are time barred, we are not further discussing the issue of liability of service tax on the amounts categorised as reimbursable expenses by the appellants and whether these reimbursable expenses have to be treated as part of value of taxable service of C & F Agency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir clients; and they did not charge to their clients other than C F commission and they claimed that they met all the expenses out of their own pocket on behalf of their clients. 2.1 The appellants viz., M/s. Raja s Enterprises have mentioned that they have been paying service tax in respect of the commission received from their client viz., M/s. Duphar-Interfran Limited, Bombay and other expenses were duly reimbursed by their client viz., M/s. Duphar-Interfran Limited. These expenses are like telephone, internet, printing and stationery, etc., subject to maximum limits incurred on behalf of service receiver to meet their obligations; the said reimbursement amount cannot form part of the taxable value, in the absence of the mandate i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax. 4. Revenue has been represented by learned AR, Shri Parashiva Murthy. He reiterated the findings given by the lower authorities. He further pleaded that both the appellants have artificially split up the subject expenses, which are part of C F Agent s service provided by them to their clients and which are in the category of reimbursable cost and deserve to be included in the value of the taxable service of C F Agency service. 4.1 Revenue relies on the Larger Bench decision of CESTAT in case of M/s. Shri Bhagavathy Traders vs. CCE, Cochin:2011-TIOL-1155-CESTAT-BANG.-LB and CESTAT Delhi s decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Team S S: 2011 (21) S.T.R. 290 (Tri.-Del.). 5. We have carefully considered the facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants as reimbursable expenses which are not to be included in the value of taxable service of C F Agent s Service. But the Revenue says that the said expenses are not in the category of reimbursable expenses and they are the input costs used in rendering C F Agent s Service. 5.2 In this regard, the appellants have argued that the issue of charging service tax on reimbursable expenses has been decided in their favour by Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Sangamitra Services Agency (supra) and by CESTAT Bangalore s decision in the case of Sri Sastha Agencies Pvt. Ltd.: 2007 (6) S.T.R. 185 (Tri.-Bang.). 5.2.1 The learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that considering the above decisions of CEST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
