TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appellant. - ST/408/2009-DB - Final Order No.20711/2019 - Dated:- 12-9-2019 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate For the Appellant Dr. J.Harish, Joint Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 15.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the appellant with some modification. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a C F Agent for M/s Associated Cement Companies Ltd. and als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rage charges of ₹ 89,774/- in the value of C F Agent Service for levy of Service Tax. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without giving any specific finding on each of the reimbursable expenses. He further submitted that the only question in this appeal is whether the expenses viz. Godown rent, damage allowance, loading charges, demurrage charges are includable in the value of service of the C F Agent. He further submitted that the appellants have received reimbursement of the rent of ₹ 13,83,944/- for the Godown hired for storage of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and demurrage charges in connection with transportation of goods not being consideration for C F Agent Service are not includable in the value of taxable service. He further argued that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Intercontinental Consultants and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC)] wherein it has been held that the reimbursement of expenses are not includable in the value of taxable service. He further submitted that the SCN was issued on 26.09.2005 proposed to demand Service Tax for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.08.2004 by invoking the extended period of limitation. He further argued that the appellant had a bona fide belief that the reimbursements o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present case is whether the reimbursable expenses are to be included in the value of service of the C F Agent. Further, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) though has set aside the demand on TDS and on reimbursement of certain expenditure but he has not given any specific finding on each of the reimbursable expenses viz. Godown rent, damage allowance, loading charges and demurrage charges. Further, we find that all these expenses were reimbursed by the appellant for the various purposes incurred for carrying on the business of C F Agent Service. Further, we find that issue involved is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court cited supra wherein in Para 24 29 it has been observed as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 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 reimbursable expenditure or cost would also form part of valuation of taxable services for charging service tax. Though, it was not argued by the Learned Counsel for the Department that Section 67 is a declaratory provision, nor could it be argued so, as we find that this is a substantive change brought about with the amendment to Section 67 and, therefore, has to be prospective in nature. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
