9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per: B. Ravichandran When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant. 2. Heard Ld. A.R and perused the appeal records. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the impugned order confirmed the service tax liability of Rs. 75,52,727/- for the period April 2007 to February 2008 and further amount of Rs. 2,75,561/- for the period April 2004 to February 2008. Penalty of Rs. 80 lakh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porting evidence. We note before us also no supporting evidence has been produced. In fact, the case has been listed on many occasions when none appeared for the appellant. We note that the appellant vide their letter dt.4.8.2017 informed that there is a proceeding in the Hon'ble High Court of Madras resulting in the appointment of Official Liquidator. However, when the case was listed subsequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat reimbursable expenditure on actual basis which are incurred by the service provider on behalf of service recipient is not liable to be included in the taxable value of services. Accordingly, we hold that the demand of service tax of Rs. 2,75,561/- confirmed on reimbursement expenditure is not sustainable. Accordingly, demand to this extent is set aside. 6. In view of the above discussions and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
