https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291262 The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision that the respondent did not contravene Section 67 of the Finance Act by not paying service tax on the full amount received. It was determined that the respondent acted as a "pure agent" and met conditions under Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax Rules. Additionally, the respondent was found not to qualify as a Customs House Agent under Section 65(35) of the Finance Act. The amounts recovered through debit notes were deemed reimbursement charges and not subject to service tax. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the initial decision. en-us Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Nov 2020 18:02:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291262 The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision that the respondent did not contravene Section 67 of the Finance Act by not paying service tax on the full amount received. It was determined that the respondent acted as a "pure agent" and met conditions under Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax Rules. Additionally, the respondent was found not to qualify as a Customs House Agent under Section 65(35) of the Finance Act. The amounts recovered through debit notes were deemed reimbursement charges and not subject to service tax. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the initial decision. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291262