2007 (7) TMI 33 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Rules in Favor of Appellants, Setting Aside Service Tax Demand

SANGAMITRA SERVICES AGENCY Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Service tax demand on additional charges collected from customers. Emphasizing Rule 6(8) ... Valuation(Service tax) - Department is of the view that the certain charges apart from remunerations includible in the taxable value rendered by the appellant - Held that department contention was not correct and set aside Issues:Service tax demand on amounts collected from customers, challenge on merits and limitation.Analysis:The appellants were demanded Service tax on amounts collected from customers, including charges apart from remuneration. The lower authorities held that these charges needed to be added to the taxable value of services rendered. The appellants argued that they were liable to pay tax only on the gross amount of remuneration received from principals. They cited Rule 6(8) of the Service tax Rules, stating that expenses reimbursed by principals should not be included in the taxable value. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had been paying tax on remuneration as required under Rule 6. The case of undervaluation by including additional charges was deemed beyond the scope of Rule 6(8) as per previous decisions. The Tribunal differentiated this case from Mett Macdonald, emphasizing that specific rules define the taxable value for different services.The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' submissions regarding Rule 6(8) of the Service tax Rules. The provision states that the taxable value for Clearing and Forwarding Agents is the gross amount of remuneration paid by the client. The Tribunal observed that the appellants had been compliant with tax payments based on remuneration received from principals. The inclusion of additional charges by the Revenue was deemed unjustified and beyond the scope of the relevant rule. The decision in Mett Macdonald was distinguished, highlighting the specific rule governing the taxable value for Clearing and Forwarding services. As the tax was paid on the correct taxable value, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Service tax demand based on additional charges collected from customers. The decision emphasized adherence to Rule 6(8) of the Service tax Rules, which defines the taxable value for Clearing and Forwarding Agents. The Tribunal clarified that expenses reimbursed by principals should not be included in the taxable value, aligning with previous judgments and legal provisions.