2010 (12) TMI 471

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is from April 2002 to March 2007. The Department's allegation is that during this period, they suppressed the value of taxable services to the tune of Rs. 42,45,099/- which has escaped the service tax. It is on this basis that a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for - (a) demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 7,03,916/- alongwith interest under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 readwith Section 75 ibid; and (b) imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 76 ibid. 1.2 The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur vide order-in-original No. 62/ST/ADC/RPR/09 dated 30-3-09 by which the service tax demand as raised in the show cause notice was conf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... providing C&F services which were reimbursed to them by their clients is not permissible. He, therefore, pleaded that this is not a case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 3. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned DR and have gone through the memorandum of appeal filed by the Appellant. 3.1 The appellant provide the services as C&F Agents to their clients and in addition to commission being received from their clients, certain expenses incurred by them in providing the services are also reimbursed by them by the clients. The point of dispute in this case is as to whether the service tax is to be charged on the gross amount received by the appellant including the reimbursement of the expenses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6, in terms of the provisions of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, as it stood, during that period, the assessable value of the service was gross amount charged and there was no provision in Section 67 for exclusion of any expenditure incurred by the C&F agent in course of providing the service. However, during that period, Rule 6(8) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 provided that the value of taxable service in relation to the services provided by C&F Agent to a client for rendering the services of C&F operations in any manner shall be deemed to be "the gross amount of remuneration or commission by whatever name called, paid to such agent by the client engaging such agent". Appellant's plea is that in view of the provisions of Rule 6(8) of....