Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (6) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... penses are not to be included in valuation of taxable service therefore, the reimbursable expenses cannot be includble in the assessable value of taxable service provided by the Appellant. Further the amount retained by the brand owner is also not includble in taxable value of service as per CBEC Circular dated 30th October 2009. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and Appeal is allowed. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- As the impugned period is 2015-17, wherein the Show Cause Notice has been issued to the Appellant on 20th October 2020, which is highly time barred as earlier. As earlier show Cause Notice of the same issue had been issued to the appellant on 16/09/2014. Therefore, the Show Cause Notice is barred by limitation. Acco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anufacture, dispatch and sale of IMFL are also carried out as instructed by the Brand Owner at the prices decided by the Brand Owner. 3. The actual manufacturer being the CBU, the necessary compliances with respect to tax and regulatory provisions are carried out by the CBU. Expenses required for manufacture are incurred by the CBU. The bank account in which the sale proceeds are received is controlled by the Brand Owner. For carrying out the manufacturing activity under the brand belonging to the Brand Owner, the CBU is entitled to agreed retention charges which are similar to job charge paid to the job worker in a job work manufacture scenario. 4. From the sale proceeds, the CBU is allowed certain deductions such as the costs of raw .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rue nature of the transaction is that of a job work transaction, in which only the job work charges are taxable service. The said Show Cause Notices were adjudicated and demand of Service Tax was confirmed. Against the said orders, the appellants are before us. 8. The Learned Advocate appearing before us submits that in Appeal No. ST/75951/2021 the impugned period is April 2015 to June 2017 whereas the Show Cause Notice has been issued on 20th October 2020 is barred by limitation as the activity of the appellant was known to the Department much earlier as on the same issue was in Appeal No. ST/75793 of 2015 wherein the period involved is 23/9/2009 to 30/06/2012 and Show Cause Notice was issued on 16/09/2014. Therefore, the Show Cause Not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... after going through the above Circular observed that the CBU being a job worker in manufacturer of IMFL on behalf of the brand owner and the amount retained by the CBUs, is liable to be taxed. The amount retained by the Brand Owner is business profit, no Service Tax is payable. The said order has been affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court reported in 2016 (42) STR JI 43 (SC). 10. He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Blossom Industries Limited Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, Daman reported in 2016 (41) S.T.R. 872 (Tri.- Ahmd.) to say that the reimbursable expenses paid by the brand owner, the CBU are cost and expenditure as stipulated under Rule 5 (1) Service Tax Valuation Rule 2006 and cannot b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Therefore, the impugned order in Appeal No. ST/79893/2015 is set aside and Appeal is allowed. (ii) ST/75951/2021:- 14. As the impugned period is 2015-17, wherein the Show Cause Notice has been issued to the Appellant on 20th October 2020, which is highly time barred as earlier. As earlier show Cause Notice of the same issue had been issued to the appellant on 16/09/2014. Therefore, We hold that the Show Cause Notice is barred by limitation. Accordingly, Appeal succeeds on limitation. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order in Appeal No. ST/75951/2021 and allow the Appeal with consequential relief, if any. 15. In view of the above observations, both appeals are allowed. ( Operative part of the order was pronou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates