TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 58,91,811/- along with interest thereon against the appellant, M/s. Pharmalinks Agency (I) Pvt. Ltd. and also imposing equivalent amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us. 2.1 M/s. Pharmalinks Agency (I) Pvt. Ltd. entered into a C&F agency agreement and also a warehousing service agreement with M/s. Abbot India Ltd. The warehousing agreement was for storage of goods and the clearing and forward agency agreement was for the purpose of handling, carrying forwarding and shipping of the products. Service tax liability was discharged on the warehousing rent and also on the C&F agency charges. In addition to the above, the appellants made certain payments on behalf of the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....larly, the appellant also incurred octroi, sales tax and licence fees on behalf of M/s. Abbot India Ltd. which they got reimbursed. These payments are statutory in nature and the payments have been made on behalf of M/s. Abbot India Ltd. and therefore, these charges do not form part of the consideration received for rendering C&F Agency services. 3.2 As regards the DFC unloading charges, the expenses are incurred for transportation of the goods from the premises of the loan licensee of Abbot India Ltd to the appellant's warehouse and this has no relation with C&F agency agreement entered into between Abbot India Ltd. and the appellant and, therefore, these charges are also not includable. 3.3 With regard to the electricity charges, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) STR 525 it was held that the issue whether the reimbursable expenses to be included in the assessable value of service was settled by the larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sri Bhagavathy Traders (supra) and prior to that there were divergent views. In these circumstances, the demand beyond the period of normal limitation is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned demand be set aside and the appeal allowed. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Naresh Kumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata 2008 (11) STR 578 wherein it was held that if an e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., these costs are also not includable for the purpose of levy of service tax. 5.3 As regards DFC unloading charges, the said charges are for transportation of the goods from the premises of the loan-licensee of Abbot India Ltd to the appellant's warehouse and it has no relation with the C&F agency agreement between the appellant and M/s. Abbot India Ltd. Therefore, the question of adding these charges as part of the consideration received will not sustain. 5.4 This leaves the three other charges, namely, courier, fax and telephone charges amounting to Rs. 12,09,946/-; electricity charges amounting to Rs. 10,36,873/- and stationery and related charges amounting to Rs. 27,59,503/-. These charges have been incurred by the appellant as pa....