TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d dismissed appeal of the appellant. 2. The fact of the case is that appellants are holder of Service Tax Registration No. AADCP3585DST001 and are engaged in providing services of 'Consulting Engineer'. It was observed that the appellants had recovered the Traveling expenses, Hostel accommodation and Telephone charges etc incurred for visit to the site of their customers for collection of inputs and providing on-site services, by issue of separate bills over and above the taxable amount charged for the services rendered. The appellant, therefore, contravened the provision of Section 67(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 5(1) and 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The service tax short paid by the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is the only gross value towards the provision of services are taxable, whereas in the present case the reimbursable expenses are over and above the service charges and it is nothing to do with provision of services, it is not part and parcel of gross value of services provided, therefore same is not liable for service tax. He referred to Trade Notice No. 53/97 dted 4/7/1997 wherein in para 4.5 it was clarified that in case of Consulting Engineer, gross amount charged to the client for services rendered shall be taxable and amount incurred for other expenses which was reimbursed on actual basis shall be excluded. This clarification is directly applicable in the present case, being dispute of value of Consulting Engineer services. He submits ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for such adjustment to their Jurisdictional Superintendent within the period of 15 days from the date of such adjustment as prescribed in sub Rule 4(b) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules. He submits that it is not correct to say that said procedure has not been followed for the reason that firstly excess payment made during the quarter May, 2006-July 2006 has been adjusted in the next month i.e. August, 2006. Secondly the appellant has declared the fact of excess payment and adjustment thereof in their ST-3 returns therefore the procedure prescribed broadly stands complied with. In support of his submission he placed reliance on following judgments: (a) Nirma Architects & Valuers Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex Ghaziabad [2006 (1) S.T.R. 305 (Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... failed to do so, therefore demand on this count is sustainable. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. 6. On the first issue that whether certain expenses incurred by the appellant and same was reimbursed by the service recipient in relation to providing Consulting Engineering Services, we find that the bills for such reimbursement were separately raised. Trade Notice No.53- C.E. (Service Tax)/97 dated 4/7/1997 has clarified as under:- "4.5 As in the case of manpower recruitment agencies service tax on consulting engineers shall be the gross amount charged to the client for services rendered in relation to the recruitment of manpower excluding the amount incurred in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons, we are of the considered view that reimbursement shall not be taxable and demand on such reimbursement is not sustainable. 6.1 As regard adjustment of excess paid service tax during the period May, 2006-July, 2006 and the adjustment of the same in the month of August, 2006 is squarely in terms of sub-rule 4(A) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, which is reproduced below: "4(A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4), where an assessee has opted for registration under sub-rule(2) of rule 4 these rules and has paid to the credit of Central Government any amount in excess of the amount required to be paid towards service tax liability for a month or quarter, as the case may be, for the reason of not receiving details o....