TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate For The Respondent : Dr Ezhilmathi, Joint Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: B. RAVICHANDRAN The appeal is against order dated 15.03.2006 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore. The appellant is a licensed Custom House Agent handling import/export cargo for various clients. The issue in the present case relates to valuation of the services rendered by the appellant for service tax purpose. The appellants are liable to pay service tax on the commission received for their CHA work. However, when they are charging the client on lump sum basis (like Per MT of cargo) they had an option to pay service tax on 15% of such lump sum amount. The dispute in the present case is with reference to the quantification of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclude such reimbursable expenditure in the lump sum for arriving at 15%. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The dispute mainly relates to taxable value for CHA service. Para 2.5 of the Trade Notice dated 11.06.1997 which was followed by the appellant to discharge tax liability, stipulates that when the Custom House Agent undertakes turnkey imports/exports, where a lump sum amount is charged for undertaking various services, such lump sum amount will include not only agency commission but also other expenses where no separate breakup is given in respect of these expenses; they have to form part of lump sum and thereafter 15% of such lump sum will be charged to service tax. 5. We note that the findings of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is well settled. The expenses incurred on actual basis with reference to the export or import goods of a particular client and reimbursed by the client on actual basis cannot be added for service tax purpose as the same will be beyond the scope of Section 67 of the Finance Act 1994. 6. In this connection, we also refer to the decision of the Tribunal in Cargolinks Vs. CCEX, Mangalore 2010 (19) S.T.R. 548 (Tri.-Bang.). In the said order the Tribunal examined similar set of facts and concluded that the taxable amount should not include the reimbursable expenses which are shown separately and received on actual basis. 7. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel also submitted that there is another issue involved in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
