TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal remands case for re-examination of service classification and valuation, stresses adherence to principles</h1> <h3>K. Raheja Real Estate Services Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai-V</h3> The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner for re-examination of the classification of services provided by the appellant, emphasizing the ... - Issues Involved:1. Classification of services provided by the appellant.2. Valuation of the services for the purpose of Service Tax.3. Appropriateness of penalties imposed.Summary:1. Classification of Services:The appellant, part of the K. Raheja Group, was engaged in providing various services to its group companies. The department classified these services under 'Business Auxiliary Service' u/s 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994, and raised a demand for Service Tax. The appellant contended that their activities were more appropriately classified under 'Business Support Service' which came into effect from May 2006. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not provide a clear rationale for classifying the services under 'Business Auxiliary Service' instead of 'Business Support Service,' under which the appellant was already registered and paying taxes. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to re-examine the classification as per the principles of classification.2. Valuation of Services:The appellant argued that the cost-sharing arrangement among the group companies did not constitute a taxable service and that the valuation rules should not apply prior to 19.4.2006. They contended that the actual cost allocated should not be considered as charges for services provided. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not address these submissions adequately and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the valuation aspect after determining the correct classification.3. Appropriateness of Penalties:The Commissioner had imposed penalties u/s 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and ordered the recovery of interest u/s 75. The Tribunal did not specifically address the appropriateness of these penalties but implied that the penalties would need to be reconsidered based on the reclassification and revaluation of the services.Conclusion:The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner to first decide the issue of classification of services as per the principles of classification and then address the valuation aspect. All issues were kept open, and the Commissioner was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing to the appellant. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
