TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 1994 as recipient of Insurance Auxiliary service and then recovered from the service providers i.e. insurance agents is required to be deposited as per Section 73A(2) of Finance Act, 1994? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Revenue sought to recover the amount of service tax initially paid by the Appellant, but later passed on the burden under an agreement/arrangement to the insurance agents, while paying their commission for the service received. Neither side raised the issue that the service tax amount paid by the Appellant has been collected in excess from the insurance agents; it is the plea of the Revenue that since the payment of service tax has been cast on the recipient of service by virtue of Rule 2(1)(d)(iii) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, hence, the person liable to discharge service tax should absorb the liability and hence such person is precluded from shifting the burden to the insurance agent. However, in the event he passes on the service tax burden, then he is required to deposit the said amount with the govt., as the tax amount is not required to be further collected from the insurance agents - for the purpose of administrative convenience, the collecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellants and later collected from the insurance agents by adjusting the commission paid, cannot be directed to be deposited under Section 73A(2) of Finance Act, 1994 - The expenses incurred in pre-recruitment training and post licence training of insurance agents by the Appellants cannot form part of the gross taxable value of commission paid to the Insurance Agents in determining the service tax liability. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.ST/88681, 90151/2014, ST/87483, 86290/2015, ST/85443, 85829, 86236, 86321, 86433, 86795, 86796/2016 - A/86013-86023/2019 - Dated:- 31-5-2019 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) S/Shri Rohan Shah, S.S. Gupta, Chirag Shetty, Vinay Jain, Harsh Shah, Nirali Jigyaji - Advocates for the Assessees S/Shri K.M. Mondal, Special Counsel, M.K. Sarangi, Jt.Cmr., And M. Suresh, DC- Authorised Representatives for Revenue ORDER PER: D.M. MISRA These 11 appeals are taken up together for disposal since involve common issues. The details of each of the Appeal, i.e impugned order, service tax de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by CST-VII, Mumbai ₹ 2,32,87,955 u/S 73(2) with interest u/S 75; ₹ 6,05,25,583/- u/S 73(2) with interest u/S 75 @ ₹ 100 per day u/S 76; ₹ 10,000 u/S 77 7 ST/86290/2015 OIO No.18/STVI/ RS/2014, dt.19.03.2015, passed by CST-VI, Mumbai ₹ 1,86,58,017/- u/S 73(2) with interest u/S 75; ₹ 73,33,31,000/- u/S 73(2) with interest u/S 73B. @ ₹ 200/- per day u/S 76; ₹ 10,000/- u/S 77; ₹ 75,19,89,017 u/S 78. 8 ST/86321/2016 OIO No.11/STVI/ RK/2015, dt.29.01.2016, passed by CST, Mumbai-VI ₹ 78,39,016/- u/S 73(2) with interest u/S 75; ₹ 12,70,26,735/- u/S 73A(2) with interest u/S 75. ₹ 7,83,901/- u/S 76; ₹ 10,000/- u/S 77. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount equivalent to the Service Tax paid on the commission charges from the agents. Alleging that since the Appellant has recovered the Service Tax from the insurance agents, even though the Service Tax was required to be paid by the Appellant, therefore, such collection is without authority of law and accordingly required to be deposited as per Section 73A(2) of Finance Act, 1994, consequently, demands have been raised against each of the Appellant with interest and proposal for penalty invoking extended period of limitation. It is also alleged that the Appellants had collected and incurred pre-training expenses from the prospective insurance agents and also provided post licence training to the insurance agents, the expenditure incurred on account of the said trainings have been considered as an additional consideration and proposed to be included in computing the gross taxable value i.e. in the commission amount paid to the insurance agent, in determining the service tax liability. On adjudication, the demands were confirmed with interest and penalty. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The learned Advocate Shri Rohan Shah appearing for the Appellant M/s Kotak Mahind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngalore 2014-TIOL-1753-CESTAT-BANG. Therefore, in the present case, as the Service Tax was leviable under the Finance Act, 1994 on insurance auxiliary service provided by the insurance agent, subsection (2) of Section 73A of Finance Act, 1994 cannot be made applicable to the present case. 7. He has further submitted that Section 73A of Finance Act, 1994, is pari materia to Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 11D (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, corresponds to Section 73A (1) of Finance Act, 1994. Further Section 11D(1A) of the Central Excise Act, which was inserted w.e.f. 10.05.2008 corresponds to both the situations (exempt or Nil rate) covered under Section 73A (1) and (2) of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the judicial interpretation of Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 is squarely applicable to Section 73A of Finance, Act, 1994. Further he has submitted that accordingly the law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd Ors. Vs UOI [(1997)5 SCC 536] in the context of Section 11D is squarely applicable to the present case. In the said case, the Hon ble Supreme Court, at Para 133 of the judgment, has hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not qualified or appointed as an insurance agent, accordingly, such individual was not in a position to render taxable service of insurance auxiliary service . It is also possible that several of those who undertake the training do not qualify as an insurance agent; also, those who qualify may not choose to be an agent or remains an agent of the Appellant. The commission paid by the Appellant to all insurance agents is same irrespective of where they have received pre-recruitment training or entered as a trading agent. The commission required to be paid to the agents as per insurance scheme is approved by the regulatory authority i.e. IRDA. Further he has submitted that ₹ 1,000/- collected from each individual towards pre-training under a separate arrangement whereas under the said agreement the Appellant is a service provider and individual is the service recipient. The Appellant, after introduction of negative list from 1.7.2012 paid service tax on the said amount of ₹ 1,000/- collected as pre-recruitment training expenses. Further, he has submitted that the demand is inflated as it includes the amount paid by those individual who do not qualify and/or who do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses incurred during the course of providing services are in the nature of hiring conference hall, printing of training materials, arranging for lodging and boarding of the agents, hiring of instructor, arranging food at the training venue, travelling expenses of the agents from various locations to central location where training is conducted etc are incurred for the benefit of the agents. These expenses are directly borne by the Appellant and never reimbursed to the agent. Hence, provision of Rule 5 (1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules cannot be applicable. It is his contention that the value of service required to be determined as per Sec.67 of Finance Act, 1994. Further, he has submitted that the Appellant have already paid service tax under reverse charge mechanism and availed credit of the same. Therefore, the excess amount if included in the value of commission, the same would be available to the Appellant as credit which is a revenue neutral situation. Consequently, invoking of extended period of limitation in confirming the demand is untenable. 12. The learned Advocate Shri Vinay Jain appearing for Appellant viz. M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Appellants are themselves beneficiary of the said expenditure, hence such expenditure cannot be included in the value of service received. 13. He has further submitted that it is well settled principle that just because the third party derives benefit out of a particular service it does not mean that the original party who contracted to receive the service will be denied this benefit. In support, he has referred to the decision of the House of Lords in the English case of Customs Excise Commissioners Vs Redrow Group Plc. (1999 ALL ER 1). A similar view has been expressed by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Chandulal Keshavlal Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC). 14. The learned Advocate further contended that Rule 5 and Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules are not applicable to the present case. It is his contention that Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 prescribes for gross amount charged by the service provider for providing taxable service which shall be the value on which the service tax is required to be paid. In the present case, the Appellants are already discharging service tax on the gross amount charged by the insurance agent under rever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that any other sum should refer to only monitory consideration and cannot extend to any other benefit. In support, he has referred to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of H.H. Sri Rama Verma Vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 308 (SC). 18. Rebutting the appeal filed by Revenue that the corrigendum issued by the Commissioner subsequent to the issue of OIO is not within his jurisdiction, the learned Advocate referred to Section 74 of Finance Act, 1994 and submitted that the issue of corrigendum is well within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. In support, he has referred to the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Rajkot Vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd 2010 (18) STR (SC). 19. The learned Advocates appearing for other Appellants more or less subscribed to the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned Advocates Shri Rohan Shah and Shri S.S. Gupta. 20. Per contra, the Special Counsel Shri K.M. Mondal for the Revenue, has submitted that Section 73A was inserted in Chapter 5 of Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 18.04.2006. Prior to such insertion, Section 11D of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce company which has collected service tax from the insurance agents, must deposit the same with the Central Government. Otherwise, sub-section (2) of Section 73A of Finance Act, 1994 will be rendered purposeless and nugatory. It is his argument that the present proceedings are concerned only with provision of sub-section (2) and not with provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 73A of Finance Act, 1994. 22. Referring to the judgment of this Tribunal in HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd s case, the learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal in the said case, has not recorded any specific finding regarding the scope and ambit on sub-section (2) of Section 73A of Finance Act, 1994. The judgment totally based on the interpretation of sub-section (1) of Section 73A. The decision is therefore subsilentio in respect of the issue involved. In support, he has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Oil Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Vs CC Raigad - 2010 (262) ELT 1078 (T). 23. Further, he has submitted that excess collection of service tax over and above the service tax due which is covered by Section 73A(1) of Finance Act, 1994. This is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax 2015 (38) STR 289 (SC), the learned Special Counsel has submitted that in the said case the honourable court has held that in terms of statutory provision it is the appellant. Discharge the liability was revenue on account of service tax. Further, distinguishing the judgment in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd s case, the learned Special Counsel has submitted that the judgment is not an authority on the subject to say that the agreement between the parties would take precedent over the statutory provisions. 27. On the issue of inclusion of training expenses in the value of taxable service, the learned Special Counsel has submitted that in view of Board s Circular dt.10.04.2006 wherein it is clarified that the value for the purpose of charging service tax is the gross amount received as a consideration for provision of service. All the expenses or cost incurred by the service provider in providing the taxable service form an integral part of the taxable value and hence are includible in the value. 28. On the issue of time bar, the learned Special Counsel has submitted that no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put service, cannot be included from the gross taxable value for the purpose of service tax. In support, he has referred to the judgment in the case of Jecobs Engineering India Pvt. Ltd Vs CST Ahmedabad 20178 TIOL-2914-CESTAT-AHM, Sri Bhagavathy Traders Vs CCE Cochin 2011 (24) STR 290 (Tri-LB), BEE Am Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs CST 2017-4-GSTL-185-Tri-Del. Further, referring to the Board s Circular No.B-1/4/2006-TRU, dt.19.04.2006, on the issue of reimbursable expenditure, it is clarified that all the expenses or cost incurred by the service provider in the course of providing taxable service forms an integral part of the taxable value and are includible in the value. It is not relevant that various expenses or costs are separately indicated in the invoice or bills issued by the service provider to his client. 30. Heard both sides at length and perused the records. 31. The common issues involved in these appeals for determination are:- (i) Whether service tax paid by the Appellant in accordance with Rule 2(1)(d)(iii) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 as recipient of Insurance Auxiliary service and then recovered from the service provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay duty under this Act or the rules made thereunder, and has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined and paid on any excisable goods under this Act or the rules made thereunder from the buyer of such goods in any manner as representing duty of excise, shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government. (2) Where any amount is required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government under sub-section (1) and which has not been so paid, the Central Excise Officer may serve, on the person liable to pay such amount, a notice requiring him to show cause why the said amount, as specified in the notice, should not be paid by him to the credit of the Central Government. (3) The Central Excise Officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by the person on whom the notice is served under sub-section (2), determine the amount due from such person (not being in excess of the amount specified in the notice) and thereupon such person shall pay the amount so determined. (4) The amount paid to the credit of the Central Government under [subsection (1) or sub-section (3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not been so paid, the Central Excise Officer shall serve, on the person liable to pay such amount, a notice requiring him to show cause why the said amount, as specified in the notice, should not be paid by him to the credit of the Central Government. (4) The Central Excise Officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by the person on whom the notice is served under sub-section (3), determine the amount due from such person, not being in excess of the amount specified in the notice, and thereupon such person shall pay the amount so determined. (5) The amount paid to the credit of the Central Government under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (4), shall be adjusted against the service tax payable by the person on finalisation of assessment or any other proceeding for determination of service tax relating to the taxable service referred to in sub-section (1). (6) Where any surplus amount is left after the adjustment under subsection (5), such amount shall either be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund referred to in section 12C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or, as the case may be, re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (ii) ... (iii) in relation to insurance auxiliary service by an insurance agent, any person carrying on the general insurance business or the life insurance business, as the case may be, in India) 39. Needless to mention, generally it is the economists concepts who classify tax base broadly into direct and indirect one. Income tax, Wealth tax property tax, etc. is placed in the category of direct tax, whereas customs, excise, sales tax, VAT, GST etc. are popularly called as indirect taxes. In India the tax is not levied and collected classifying as Direct and Indirect Tax unlike few other Countries. It is held by the Hon ble Supreme Court, that service tax is an indirect tax and is a destination based consumption tax. However, for the purpose of administrative convenience, the collection of service tax could be made either from the service provider or service recipient in relation to the service which is the object of the tax. Merely because the tax is collected from the service recipient, the character of the service tax will not be altered, but it would continue to remain as service tax only. Therefore, the reasoning of the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion (4) authorises the officer to determine the amount payable by the said person and such person will pay the amount so determined. Sub-section (5) prescribes that the amount so paid under Sub-Sec.(1) or Sub-sec. (2) or Sub. Sec (4), shall be adjusted against the service tax payable by the person on finalisation of assessment or any other proceedings for determination of service tax relating to the taxable service referred to in sub-section (1). Sub-section (6) lays down whether any service amount left after adjustment, such amount either be credited and deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund or be refunded to the person who has borne the incidence of said amount, in accordance with the provisions of Sec.11B of the said Act and such person may make an application under that section within six months from the date of public notice to be sued by the central excise officer for refund of the such surplus amount. 44. A careful reading of the said self contained provisions of Sec. 73A, and in particular Sub. Sec.(6), it can safely inferred that the Government cannot retain the amount in excess of applicable service tax collected and deposited with the Govt., but after adjus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t shall either be credited to the Fund or be paid over to the person who has borne the incidence of such amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 11B. It is obvious that if in a given case, the manufacturer has collected less amount as representing the duty of excise than what is due according to law, he is not relieved of the obligation to pay the full duty according to law. This is the general purport and meaning of Section 11D. These may be case where goods are removed/cleared without effecting their sale. In such a case, Section 11D is not attracted. It is attracted only when goods are sold. The purport of this section is in accord with Section 11B and cannot be faulted. 45. Both sides have referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Prabhu Dayal Kanojiya Vs CCE Jaipur (supra). Revenue, referring to the said judgment, has argued that in the event no service tax liability arise out of the transaction, if any, collected has to be deposited with the Government. To understand the said judgment in its proper perspective, it is necessary to read Paras 4 5 of the judgment before analyzing the observation of the Tribunal which reads as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es a notice to be issued to show cause why the amount, as specified in the notice, in respect of a liability arising under Section 1 and 2, should not be paid by the Noticee to the credit the Central Government. 46. While dealing with the circumstances at Para 4 i.e. confirmation of the demand for ₹ 4,18,685/- solely on the ground that the said amount must have been paid under the relevant agreement, since the stipulation in the agreement disclosed that service tax element, if payable, is extra, the Tribunal, analyzing the scope of Section 73A(2) of Finance Act, 1994, observed that the conditions required for directing any person to remit any amount collected as service tax, which is not required to be so collected, is a finding of fact and it is for the Revenue to establish that the person had, in fact, collected the amount, representing as service tax, even though no service tax liability arises under the transaction qua for which such collection is made. It is the observation of the Tribunal that the condition need to be satisfied for demanding the amount u/s 73A(2) that no service tax liability arises, but the amount has been collected representing as ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewn Chand Ram Saran [2012-TIOL- 37-SC-ST = 2012 (26) S.T.R. 289 (S.C.)], the Hon ble Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the principal who was, by law, designated as assessee under Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 could, in enforcing contractual obligations, be allowed to recover the service tax dues paid by it for the services rendered by a contractor and it was held that : As far as 26. the submission of shifting of tax liability is concerned, as observed in paragraph 9 of Laghu Udyog Bharati (supra), service tax is an indirect tax, and it is possible that it may be passed on. Therefore, an assessee can certainly enter into a contract to shift its liability of service tax. Though the appellant became the assessee due to amendment of 2000, his position is exactly the same as in respect of Sales Tax, where the seller is the assessee, and is liable to pay Sales Tax to the tax authorities, but it is open to the seller, under his contract with the buyer, to recover the Sales Tax from the buyer, and to pass on the tax burden to him. Therefore, though there is no difficulty in accepting that after the amendment of 2000 the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding precedent being sub silentio. 49. We find merit in the contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellant. This Tribunal, after analyzing the scheme of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 73A, arrived at the finding that any amount if collected in excess only is required to be deposited with the Government. 50. The next issue for consideration is whether the expenditure incurred by the Appellant in providing pre-recruitment and post licence training to the insurance agent be considered as a part of the value of commission paid to the insurance agents. The prerecruitment training expenses are nothing but training and examination fee provided by the Appellant to the individuals so as to qualify to work as insurance agent as per IRDA norms. In some cases, viz. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd, the Appellant had collected ₹ 1,000/- as pre-training expenditure charges from the individuals, whether subsequently after receiving the training, the trainees took up the profession as an insurance agent and served the Appellant or otherwise. It is the contention of the learned Advocate Shri Rohan Shah for the said Appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ascertainable, be the amount as may be determined in the prescribed manner. (2) Where the gross amount charged by a service provider, for the service provided or to be provided is inclusive of service tax payable, the value of such taxable service shall be such amount as, with the addition of tax payable, is equal to the gross amount charged. (3) The gross amount charged for the taxable service shall include any amount received towards the taxable service before, during or after provision of such service. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), the value shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, - (a) consideration includes any amount that is payable for the taxable services provided or to be provided; (b) money includes any currency, cheque, promissory note, letter of credit, draft, pay order, travellers cheque, money order, postal remittance and other similar instruments but does not include currency that is held for its numismatic value; (c) gross amount charged inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able has to satisfy the following ingredients : a. Service tax is payable on the gross amount charged :- the words gross amount only refers to the entire contract value between the service provider and the service recipient. The word gross is only meant to indicate that it is the total amount charged without deduction of any expenses. Merely by use of the word gross the Department does not get any jurisdiction to go beyond the contract value to arrive at the value of taxable services. Further, by the use of the word charged , it is clear that the same refers to the amount billed by the service provider to the service receiver. Therefore, in terms of Section 67, unless an amount is charged by the service provider to the service recipient, it does not enter into the equation for determining the value on which service tax is payable. b. The amount charged should be for for such service provided : Section 67 clearly indicates that the gross amount charged by the service provider has to be for the service provided. Therefore, it is not any amount charged which can become the basis of value on which service tax becomes payable but the amount charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Explanation (c) to subsection (4) was relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue to buttress the stand taken by the Revenue and we again reproduce the said Explanation herein below in order to understand the contention : gross amount charges includes payment by (c) cheque, credit card, deduction from account and any form of payment by issue of credit notes or debit notes and [book adjustment, and any amount credited or debited, as the case may be, to any account, whether called suspense account or by any other name, in the books of account of a person liable to pay service tax, where the transaction of taxable service is with any associated enterprise.] 15. It was argued that payment received in any form and any amount credited or debited, as the case may be... is to be included for the purposes of arriving at gross amount charges and is leviable to pay service tax. On that basis, it was sought to argue that the value of goods/materials supplied free is a form of payment and, therefore, should be added. We fail to understand the logic behind the aforesaid argument. A plain reading of Explanation (c) which makes the gross amount cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e service recipient has no relevance in the determination of the value of taxable services provided by the service provider. 53. The Hon ble Supreme Court, while examining the vires of Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, in Intercontinental Consultants Technocrats Pvt. Ltd case(supra), observed as follows:- 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 the subordinate legislation to be enacted in the said manner, as done by Rule 5. As noted above, prior to April 19, 2006, i.e., in the absence of any such Rule, the valuation was to be done as per the provisions of Section 67 of the Act. 22. Section 66 of the Act is the charging Section which reads as under: there shall be levy of tax (hereinafter referred to as the service tax) @ 12% of the value of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above case, at Para 29 of the said judgment has concluded that Clause (a) of Section 67(4) of Finance Act, 1994 which deals with consideration is suitably amended w.e.f. 14.05.2015 to include reimbursable expenditure or cost incurred by the service provider and charged in the course of providing the taxable service. Thus, only w.e.f. 14.05.2015, by virtue of provision of Section 67 itself, such reimbursable expenditure or cost would also form part of the value of taxable service for charging service tax. In other words, prior to 14.05.2015, such expenditure or cost incurred by the assessee in providing taxable service cannot be included in the value of service. Thus in the value commission paid by the Appellant to insurance agents such expenses cannot be included. In other words, pre and post training expenses, incurred by the Appellant cannot form part of the value of commission paid to the insurance agents. 55. We summarise the findings as below:- i) The service tax initially paid by the Appellants and later collected from the insurance agents by adjusting the commission paid, cannot be directed to be deposited under Section 73A(2) of Finance A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
