TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- The amount of expenditure claimed as deduction by the appellant is not permissible and hence the appellant is liable to pay the demanded service tax - the issue is no longer res integra inasmuch as the same stands decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of SRI BHAGAVATHY TRADERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN [ 2011 (8) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent Rep by: Shri K Chowdhury, Authorized Representative. ORDER The instant appeal has been filed by M/s. S D Business Enterprise Private Limited against demand of service tax of ₹ 58,29,459/- alongwith interest and penalty vide Order dated 02.06.2008 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata, for the period October 2001 to March 2005, which is under challenge i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the assessable value for payment of service tax. 3. Sri Sanjay Bhowmik, Ld. Advocate, appeared for the appellant and Sri K Chowdhury, Ld DR. appeared for the Revenue. 4. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that service tax has been rightly paid on the amount charged towards remuneration for providing the clearing and forwarding services and that the expenses amount re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat are costs for inputs services and inputs used in rendering services cannot be treated as reimbursable costs. There is no justification or legal authority to artificially split the cost towards providing services partly as cost of services and the rest as reimbursable expenses. The Ld. DR also relied on subsequent decisions of the Tribunal in case of Modern Business Solutions vs. CST Ahmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f recovery of said expenses were not disclosed by the appellant. With regard to imposition of penalty, the Ld. Advocate pleaded for waiver in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. We are of the view that the appellant is entitled to relief by way of waiver of penalty under the aforesaid provisions and hence, order accordingly. Thus, penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside. 7. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
