TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ran 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.P-I/RKS/207/2010 dated 28/10/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-I. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding the service tax liability on the appellant as a service recipient from service providers, who are situated abroad. The appellant had sought the servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contesting imposition of penalties on these amounts of service tax confirmed. Their main challenge, according to the Counsel is in respect of service tax liability on legal fees and out of pocket expenses, which according to him are actuals and reimburseable expenses incurred by the service providers as per the agreement. He would submit that when it is an actual expense reimbursed by the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the submissions made both sides and perused the records. 6.1 On perusal of the records, we find that it is not disputed that the appellant has received the service from consortium of Mandated Lead Managers in respect of facility arrangements in relation to raising of external commercial borrowings. It is also undisputed that the appellant had paid the lead managers fees as per the agreement. 6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommercial borrowings are for the purpose of business activity of the appellant. Keeping this in mind, we find that the appellant had made out a case for non-imposition of penalty; invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, we set aside the penalties imposed on the service tax liability which has been upheld by us. 6.4 As regards the service tax liability on an amount paid by ....