2016 (5) TMI 134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appeals), Pune - III.  Since these are filed by the same assessee raising more or less the same issue, we dispose of the appeals by a common order. 2.  Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. In appeal No. ST/675/2011 the issue is regarding the taxability of the amount received by the appellant under the category of "Management Consultancy and Manpower Recruitment Supply Agency Service."  Both the lower authorities have held that the appellant had wrongly claimed the expenses as reimbursable and did not include the same in the taxable value for payment of service tax and has also held an amount of Rs. 1,249/- claimed as abatement is wrongly availed. 4. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellant ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rsable amounts as claimed by the appellant.  The details of the demand confirmed are as under: S. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Service tax on TDS credited to the debtors ledger for which no income tax refund has been received 1,23,486/- 2. Service tax on advance received prior to provisions of tax payable on advances/ change in definition of services to be provided is included i.e. advance received prior to 16/05/2005. Advance payment received from M/s Spicer India Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2004-05 93,889/- 3. Service tax on advance/payment received of exempted services towards services provided to SEZ mainly to M/s. Glenmark, M/s. Ajanta Pharma 1,21,338/- 4. Service tax on reimbursement of exp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is no dispute as to the fact that these three payments on which tax liability has been raised is in respect of the payment received for exempted services provided to SEZ and reimbursable expenses of the licence fees, etc. paid by the appellant.  In our view, appellant has made out a case in their favour in respect of these three tax demands. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order to that extent and allow the appeal filed by the appellant to that extent. 9. As regards item No. 6, it is the claim of the appellant that these tax liabilities is also on the reimbursable expenses in the capacity of pure agent. On perusal of the records, we find that it is not so. It is noted that the appellant has been charging more than the expend....