TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 fresh review, emphasizes thorough examination of evidence</h1> The Tribunal set aside the decision denying the benefit of reimbursable charges on a flat rate basis, remanding the case for a fresh review to consider ... Reimbursement of Expenses – Insurance Auxiliary Service – Amount Claimed as reimbursement of expenses on flat rate basis which was more than actual expenses – Held that only differential amount would be chargeable to tax – matter remitted for verification of facts. Issues:1. Denial of benefit of reimbursable charges on flat rate basis.2. Rejection of verification report by Commissioner (Appeals).3. Consideration of entire evidences on record for de novo consideration.Issue 1: Denial of benefit of reimbursable charges on flat rate basisThe appellant, a service tax registered company under Insurance Auxiliary Services, faced a demand confirmation regarding reimbursable charges due to lack of evidence proving the expenses were actually incurred. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's claim based on a circular stating that expenses reimbursed on actual basis are not subject to service tax. The appellant argued that they provided documentary evidence supporting their claim, but the adjudicating authority did not acknowledge this in the findings. The appellant contended that the expenses were an integral part of providing output service, making the gross value taxable. The Board Circular cited by the appellant was deemed inapplicable as it referred to reimbursable expenses, not charges billed to clients for input expenses. The appellant's failure to disclose the claimed exemption in their return was considered as suppression of facts, justifying the invocation of the extended period.Issue 2: Rejection of verification report by Commissioner (Appeals)The range Superintendent verified the appellant's claim and raised a demand of Rs. 60,629, but the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this report, citing its absence in the findings of the Original Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal found no justification for this rejection, emphasizing that such lapses should not prejudice the assessee. The appellant submitted extensive evidence in response to audit objections, including around 10,000 pages supporting their reimbursable charges claim. The fact that charges were on a flat rate basis should not automatically disqualify the entire amount, as only the differential amount exceeding the flat rate receipts would be liable to service tax. The appellant highlighted cases where they incurred more expenses than received from clients, underscoring the need for a comprehensive review of all accounts and the verification conducted by the range officer.Issue 3: Consideration of entire evidences on record for de novo considerationGiven the above considerations, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for a fresh review, instructing a thorough examination of all evidence on record. The decision to allow the appeal by remand was accompanied by the disposal of the stay petition, ensuring a comprehensive reassessment of the case based on the complete set of evidences presented by the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
