TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to 2006-07. In some of the cases the appellant is providing service to another person who is the main contractor for providing the services required by the client who is the ultimate consumer for the service. The Appellant got registered for payment of service tax and has been paying taxes and submitting returns. While conducting audit of the records of the Appellant during Aug 2008, the officers were of the view that they had short paid service tax due from them on different accounts. A Show Cause Notice detailing the grounds involved and amounts involved was issued to the Appellant demanding differential duty with interest. Penalty under different sections of Finance Act, 1994 were also proposed. The SCN was adjudicated vide order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that exemption under notification 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 is available and there is no question of paying service tax on value of goods sold. 5. On Issue IV, the Counsel submits that out of the amount of Rs. 36 lakhs on this count, Rs. 13 lakhs is on account of expenses incurred for getting soil tests done. Remaining 23 lakhs is on account of amounts incurred by the Appellants as pure agent for the clients. He submits that after issue of notification 12/2006-S.T., dated 19-4-2006 notifying Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, the position is very clear that expenses incurred as pure agent will not form part of taxable value of services. Even prior to this date there were clarifications issued by the Board in the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise Act for admission of appeal. Thereafter the Appeal itself was considered. 8. We find the O-in-O discusses Issue-I in some detail and discusses Issue-IV in a sketchy manner. Issue-II is not seen recorded in the O-in-O. It is not clear whether this issue was raised before the adjudicating authority. It is possible that this issue has got jumbled with Issue-I. Since the matter is any way being sent back for de novo consideration the Appellant is allowed to submit the details of Bills for which amounts have not been received by them, to the adjudicating authority during de novo consideration. Issue-III was raised before the adjudicating authority [sub-paras 12(iv)(r) to (w)] but no finding on this issue is seen. On Issue-IV, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Appellant and whether the appellant is eligible for concession under notification 12/2003-S.T. If not why not. (iii) Evidence, if any, submitted by the Appellant, regarding amounts which were incurred by the Appellant as pure agent and if so whether he is eligible for exclusion of value of such items as per provisions in Rule 5(2) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and if not why not. This issue needs to be examined separately for the period prior to Notification of the said rules on the basis of instructions issued by the Board and case laws on the matter. 11. Under each of the above issues amounts involved where the Appellant has executed works as a sub-contractor of a main contractor should be in....