Tribunal upholds service tax on CHA & BAS, sets aside tax on expenses exceeding 10%. Penalties annulled.

The Tribunal upheld the demand for service tax on the value of Custom House Agent (CHA) and Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) but set aside the demand for service tax on reimbursable expenses exceeding 10%. Penalties under Section 76 & 78 were annulled due to the lack of malicious intent to evade tax. The appeal was partly allowed based on these findings.

---

---

Issues involved:
Demand of service tax on Custom House Agent (CHA) services and Business Auxiliary Services (BAS), applicability of penalties under Section 76 & 78 of the Act, treatment of reimbursable expenses in service tax calculations.

Analysis:

1. Demand of service tax on CHA and BAS services:
The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai, demanding service tax of Rs. 1,12,38,567/- for the period from 2002-03 to 2006-07. The appellant was providing CHA and BAS services and had paid service tax only on the income accounted as Service Income, omitting income under other heads. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to pay service tax on various components like brokerage received, transportation income, and other charges. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit and upheld the demand for service tax on the value of CHA and BAS services.

2. Treatment of reimbursable expenses:
The adjudicating authority demanded service tax on reimbursed expenses by the CHA, which were incurred on behalf of the service recipient. However, recent judgments and decisions by the Tribunal and High Court clarified that reimbursable expenses are not liable to service tax. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the demand for service tax on reimbursable expenses exceeding 10%.

3. Applicability of penalties under Section 76 & 78:
The appellant contested the imposition of penalties under Section 76 & 78, arguing that there was no malafide intent to evade payment of service tax. The Tribunal considered the circumstances, including the interpretation of the statute regarding reimbursable expenses, and concluded that the penalties were not sustainable. Therefore, the penalties under Section 76 & 78 were set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the demand for service tax on the value of CHA and BAS services, set aside the demand for service tax on reimbursable expenses exceeding 10%, and annulled the penalties imposed under Section 76 & 78. The appeal was partly allowed based on the above terms.

---