TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ara 3.2 of the SCN that appellant has not included the charges in the nature of deconsolidation charges, transportation charges, DO charges etc. incurred by them for providing CHA services. It is understandable that such charges are collected by the appellant from their clients and paid to the concerned service provider. It is settled position that the reimbursable expense is not subject to levy of service tax as per the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. VERSUS M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS AND TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD. [ 2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] . After analysing the facts and going through the evidence, we are of the considered view that the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in Intercontine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s incurred by the appellant for providing CHA services. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equal penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 . On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. Ld. Counsel Shri T.R. Ramesh appeared and argued for the appellant. Ld. Counsel adverted to the show cause notice and submitted that as per Annexure to the SCN itself, it is seen that the demand is raised on reimbursable expenses. Annexure-A of the SCN would show that reimbursable expenses are incurred by the appellant for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09. The demand has been conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel also argued on the ground of limitation. It is stated by the counsel that they had discharged service tax on the consideration received and the demand has been raised only on the reimbursable expenses received by them. The said issue was under litigation before the Apex Court and being interpretational issue the extended period cannot be invoked. The appellant having put forward reasonable cause for non-payment of the differential amount of service tax, it is pleaded that the penalty imposed under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 may be waived. 5. Ld. A.R Shri R. Rajaraman supported the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides. 7. From the SCN itself it is seen that the demand has been made on the reimbursable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
