TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be emphasised that Rule 5 of the Rules went much beyond the mandate of Section 67. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/490/2010-DB - Final Order No. 20355/2019 - Dated:- 2-4-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri S. Ramachandran, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K. Murali, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 11/12/2009 passed by the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner has confirmed the amount of ₹ 82,20,813/- under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 being service tax short paid by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsed from the clients. The appellant has duly documented all the charges that were paid to them ie. Their own service charges as well as the 3rd party charges and raised a consolidated bill accordingly to claim the same from the clients and has regularly filed returns to the Department and paid the service tax. While paying the service tax, appellant did not include the payments received as reimbursements from their clients for paying 3rd party service providers / agencies on a bona fide belief that they were not required to do so, as per the existing provisions of the Service Tax law. Based on certain investigation, appellant was issued a show-cause notice dt. 07/08/2008 with proposal to demand ₹ 82,20,813/- under Section 73(2) with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort/CFS, telephone miscellaneous expenses etc. were to be included as part of the CHA service and not eligible deductions under Rule 5(2) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. He further submitted that the appellants have separately shown such amounts in the bills raised on the clients and the clients also shown that such payments were being made by them towards reimbursement to 3rd party service providers. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of UOI others Vs. Intercontinental consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. [2018-TIOL-76-SC-ST] wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:- Service Tax - Valuation - inclusion of the expendit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andate of sub-section (1) of Section 67 is manifest, viz., the service tax is to be paid only on the services actually provided by the service provider. It is trite that rules cannot go beyond the statute : It is also well established principle that Rules are framed for achieving the purpose behind the provisions of the Act, as held in Taj Mahal Hotel': 'the Rules were meant only for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and they could not take away what was conferred by the Act or whittle down its effect. 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, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
