TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by them. Apparently, any scrutiny and assessment of such returns could have revealed more details regarding various categories of amounts on which the appellants are not paying service tax. These facts reveal that there is no case for invoking suppression or willful mis-statement against the appellant - penalties not imposed on same ground. Demand restricted to the normal period and penalties are also accordingly set aside - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.59692/2013(DB) - ST/A/53166/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 5-5-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Bimal Jain, CA for the appellant Shri Amresh Jain, DR for the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot contesting the service tax demand on merit except with reference to tax liability on the notional rent attributed to the premises of HUL used by them in providing the taxable service. 3. Ld. Counsel submitted that the substantial part of the demand is hit by time bar as the show cause notice was issued on 24.04.2012 covering the period October, 2006 to September, 2011. He further submitted that they have clearly indicated in their ST-3 returns regarding considerations on which service tax was not paid. It is also submitted that valuation of service in respect of C F agent has been a subject matter of large number of litigations. There is a bonafide belief on the part of the appellant regarding service tax liability to be restricted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not deal with reimbursement of expenditure on actual basis, in respect of all the considerations sought to be taxed. The appellants did not fulfill the conditions of Rule 5(2) for exclusion of receipts as pure agents. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 7. As noted already, the appellants are not contesting the demand of service tax on merit except to an extent relatable to tax on considerations attributable towards the notional rent of the premises used by the appellant, without paying any rent. The demand is mainly contested on the time bar. Regarding inclusion of considerations towards notional rent, we note that the appellants were availing the facility of free usage of the premises of the clients. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant did make intimation, in statutory returns regarding receipt of non-taxable considerations by them. Apparently, any scrutiny and assessment of such returns could have revealed more details regarding various categories of amounts on which the appellants are not paying service tax. These facts reveal that there is no case for invoking suppression or willful mis-statement against the appellant. Further, there is no specific provision in the ST-3 returns to declare various details of reimbursable expenditure. 9. Further, we also note that valuation of Clearing Forwarding Agency Services has been a matter of litigation and varying interpretation by the higher judicial forum. These decisions were already referred to by the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
