TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice states that the earlier show-cause notice was on the actual expenses incurred and reimbursed and not the once raised in the present show-cause notice. However, para 6 of the show-cause notice states that the word ‘gross amount’ has been used to emphasize the fact that no deductions will be allowed in respect of any expenditure incurred by the consulting engineer. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the two show-cause notices are different and a new and emergent situation has arisen for invoking the extended period. Therefore, the contentions in the impugned show-cause notice and the orders as far as it relates to accommodation and other charges reimbursed, the department is not correct in extending the period of limitation. Valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he exemption claimed by the appellants on freely convertible foreign exchange. However, while holding that accommodation and other reimburse charges are not includable in the assessable value of taxable service, we find that the entire show-cause notice is barred by limitation. The impugned order is set aside partly on merits and totally on limitation. - ST/446/2007-DB - Final Order No. 20070/2019 - Dated:- 18-1-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI P.A. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CA For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: P.A. ANJANI KUMAR The appellants, M/s. Roughten International Pvt. Ltd., are engaged in providing Consulting Engineering Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccommodation charge reimbursed by NHAI is excludable. The Department was aware of the facts of the case when the first show-cause notice was issued, therefore, extended period cannot be invoked in the second show-cause notice in view of the ratio of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. CCE: 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC) and Hyderabad Polymers (P) Ltd. vs. CCE: 2004 (166) ELT 151 (SC). He further submitted that they have been regularly paying the service tax and filing ST-3 returns along with challans, bills copy and these documents were verified and signed by the Superintendent every time. Therefore, limitation cannot be invoked in view of the ratio of Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST: 2007 (5) STR 118 (Tri.-Bang.). CBEC vide F. No.B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o-time along with challans and bills. Therefore, by the ratio of the judgments cited above, we find that invoking extended period is not justifiable in this case. The department sought to differentiate the earlier case with the present one stating that the issue decided earlier by the Asst. Commissioner is not the subject matter of the impugned show-cause notice in terms of para 7 of the show-cause notice. On perusal of para 7 of the show-cause notice, it is seen that the show-cause notice states that the earlier show-cause notice was on the actual expenses incurred and reimbursed and not the once raised in the present show-cause notice. However, para 6 of the show-cause notice states that the word gross amount has been used to emphasize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim themselves as sub consultants. Therefore, no abatement can be available. Regarding the receipt of remuneration in freely convertible foreign currency, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has held that as per the proviso to the Notification No.21/2003-ST dated 20.11.2003, exemption is not available when the remuneration received is repatriated back. It is not understood as to how Commissioner (A) has come to a conclusion that the same has been repatriated as no clear findings have been given on this issue. However, as per discussion above, a show-cause notice on the same issue being already issued to the appellants and the appellants submitting the returns along with bills and challans regularly, we find that department has not made a case for i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
