TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (10) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1994 are also under challenge. In Appeal No. S/159/07, the appellants have prayed for setting aside a similar demand of service tax (over Rs.1.5crores) confirmed against them by the Commissioner in a separate order for the period 2005-06 as also for vacating the penalties imposed on them. We have taken up this appeal also for final disposal along with the above appeal, after dispensing with pre-deposit. 2. The appellants got themselves registered with the department as providers of Business Auxiliary Service w.e.f. 1-10-2004. They have been filing service tax returns and paying service tax in the said category w.e.f. 1-7-2003, the date on which Business Auxiliary Service was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994 for the purpose of lev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd infrastructural expenses incurred in connection with the rendering of Business Auxiliary Service to the bank. On this basis, show cause notices were issued by the department demanding differential tax from the appellants and proposing penalties on them. The SCN for the period July'03 to March'05 was issued on 25-11-05 and the one for the period 2005-06 was issued on 19-1-07. Both the notices invoked the larger period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground of "suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax" by the noticee. The proposals in the SCNs were contested by the party. It was in adjudication of these SCNs that the impugned orders were passed by the Commissioner. 4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice tax. Another issue is whether the extended period of limitation was invocable in this case. 6. Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 defines 'value of taxable service' as the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service rendered by him. On the facts of the present case, "the service charges" collected by the appellants from the bank as consideration for the Business Auxiliary Service rendered by the former to the latter constitute "the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service". Other amounts collected by them from the bank under debit notes were only reimbursements of salaries and infrastructural expenses and the same cannot be said to be the amounts "charged" by the service provider. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present appellants has also relied on a few circulars of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. In F.No. B43/1/ dated 6-6-97, it was clarified, in respect of customs house agents' service and steamer agents' service, that reimbursements of expenses were not chargeable to service tax. In F. No. 343/5/97 dated 2-7-97, it was clarified, in relation to Consulting Engineers Service and Manpower Recruitment Agents' Service, that reimbursements of actual expenses were not subject t service tax. In F. No. B11/3/ TRU, dated 7- 10-98, it was clarified, in respect of Market Research Agency Services and Security Agency Services, that expenses reimbursed by the service recipient were not subject to service tax. In F. No. B11/1/2002 da....