TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Section 67 itself, such reimbursable expenditure or cost would also form part of value of taxable services for charging service. The CESTAT Chennai in Dream Loanz Vs CCE Coimbatore [2017 (5) TMI 1464 - CESTAT CHENNAI] held that the reimbursable out-of-pocket expenses are not includible in gross value of taxable services, not being amounts charged by service provider for such services. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.ST/669/2012 - FINAL ORDER No. 40143/2019 - Dated:- 11-1-2019 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri G. Mani, Advocate For the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Madhu Mohan Damodha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of law. In adjudication, the adjudicating authority vide an order dt. 17.08.2011 confirmed the demand along with interest as proposed in the SCN and also imposed equal penalty under Section 78 ibid. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority. Hence the appellants are before this forum. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of appellants Ld. Advocate Shri G. Mani submits that the issue stands squarely covered by the Apex Court s judgment in the case of UOI Vs Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 401 (SC). He also submits that in a recent decision, this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Coimbatore Anamallais Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Coimb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as the impugned Orders. We find that the issue as to taxability of the reimbursible expenses has finally been laid to rest by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.). The relevant observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court are as under : 21. Undoubtedly, Rule 5 of the Rules, 2006 brings within its sweep the expenses which are incurred while rendering the service and are reimbursed, that is, for which the service receiver has made the payments to the assessees. As per these Rules, these reimbursable expenses also form part of gross amount charged . Therefore, the core issue is as to whether Section 67 of the Act permits th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roviding such taxable service . That according to us is the plain meaning which is to be attached to Section 67 (unamended, i.e., prior to May 1, 2006) or after its amendment, with effect from, May 1, 2006. Once this interpretation is to be given to Section 67, it hardly needs to be emphasised that Rule 5 of the Rules went much beyond the mandate of Section 67. We, therefore, find that High Court was right in interpreting Sections 66 and 67 to say that in the valuation of taxable service, the value of taxable service shall be the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service and the valuation of tax service cannot be anything more or less than the consideration paid as quid pro qua for rendering such a service. 25. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not take away what was conferred by the Act or whittle down its effect. 29. In the present case, the aforesaid view gets strengthened from the manner in which the Legislature itself acted. Realising that Section 67, dealing with valuation of taxable services, does not include reimbursable expenses for providing such service, the Legislature amended by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from May 14, 2015, whereby Clause (a) which deals with consideration is suitably amended to include reimbursable expenditure or cost incurred by the service provider and charged, in the course of providing or agreeing to provide a taxable service. Thus, only with effect from May 14, 2015, by virtue of provisions of Section 67 itself, such reimbursa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28. Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow s backward adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bedrock that every human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset. This principle of law is known as lexprosp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
