TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t can be verified in terms of the agreement, documents/invoices supporting the claim of the appellant - matter on remand. Time limitation - the period involved is 1.5.2006 to 31.3.2009 and the notice was issued on 8.10.2010 - Held that: - the appellants maintained records of all the expenses and the present demand was based on such records. In such situation, the demand cannot be invoked by alleging willful misstatement, fraud and intention to evade payment of tax - the extended period was invoked on the ground that the information was not disclosed to the Department. When there is a bonafdide doubt based on the interpretation of the legal provisions, the question of suppression and willful misstatement cannot be sustained - appeal allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e) Rules, 2006, the expenditure incurred by the service provider as a 'pure agent' of the recipient of the services is excludible from the value for the tax purposes. It is further claimed that they have fulfilled all the conditions for being such 'pure agent'. 3. On the confirmation of service tax liability including such expenditure, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was heard and decided by the Division Bench. The Division Bench vide interim order no.18 of 2017 dated 16.02.2017 recorded the following difference of opinion, for resolution by the third member.:- (i) Whether the demand has to be upheld by not excluding the reimbursable expenses from the value of the services as held by Ld. Member ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curring various expenses during the course of providing service as recovery agent. These expenses were reimbursed to them on actual basis. This aspect can be verified in terms of the agreement, documents/invoices supporting the claim of the appellant. 6. I note that the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Intercontinental Consultants Technocrafts Pvt. Ltd. - 2013 (29) STR 9 (Delhi) has not been considered, before a decision is arrived at by the Id. Member (T). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the rule 5 (l) of the Valuation Rules 2006 is ultra virus of the substantive legal provisions of Section 67 and 68 of Finance Act, 1994. The High Court was dealing with similar reimburseable expenditure regarding travel o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
