TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order held them as not to be considered for service tax purpose to tax the activity of C F Agent. The valuation and tax liability of C F agent service has been a subject matter of dispute. The Tribunal in various decisions held that if the C F agent is carrying out certain activities incidental and claims the expenses on actual basis, the same are not includible in the taxable consideration. These expenses may be like go-down rent, carting and shifting charges, transportation, maintenance of staff and other establishment for the client etc. Reference can be made to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of SANGAMITRA SERVICES AGENCY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI [ 2007 (7) TMI 33 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] . The Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the client. These considerations were held to be part of gross value for service tax purpose for discharging service tax under the category of clearing and forwarding agency . The Original Authority confirmed the service tax demand of ₹ 38,07,077/- penalties under Section 76/78 77 of Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order set aside the original order and allowed the appeal. 2. Aggrieved by this order the Revenue is in appeal. 3. Ld. AR elaborated the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. The main contention of the Revenue is that the case laws are referred to by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are not appropriate as there are contrary decisions. 4. The ld. Counsel appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out certain activities incidental and claims the expenses on actual basis, the same are not includible in the taxable consideration. These expenses may be like go-down rent, carting and shifting charges, transportation, maintenance of staff and other establishment for the client etc. Reference can be made to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangamitra Services Agency vs. CCE, Chennai 2007 (8) S.T.R. 233 (Tri.-Chennai). The Tribunal held that reimbursable expenditures towards freight, labour, electricity, telephone etc. are not includible. The said decision was affirmed by the Hon ble Madras High Court in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 137. The Tribunal in the case of Nandini Warehousing Corporation 2007 (8) S.T.R. 511 (Tri-Bangalore) held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
