2017 (8) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Forwarding Agent Service . The demand was confirmed by the Commissioner and penalty under Section 76, 77 & 78 were imposed aggrieved by the said order the appellants are before Tribunal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant entered into contract with M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. for the activity of C & F cum Repacking Agent in terms of the said agreement. The appellants were required to carry out the activity of Clearing & Forwarding and Repacking Agent of Tata Salt and all other goods of the company as may be specified by the company from time to time. In terms of the said contract the appellants were required to stock material on behalf of M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. The appellants were required to create the neces....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hem is not C&F service but packaging service. Ld. Counsel further argued that the demand is barred by limitation as the issue regarding includibility of reimbursement in the assessable value was referred to Larger Bench and the same was settled only when the decision of Larger Bench in case of Sri Bhagavathy Traders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin - 2011 (24) STR 290 (Tri.-LB). He argued that Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 was struck down as ultra vires of Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2013(29) STR 9 (Del.). 3. Learned AR for the Revenue argued that the appellants have been non ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Section 67 of the Finance Act. It has been argued that in view of the said decision, it is not open to Revenue to include the value of reimbursement in the assessable value. The entire value received by the appellant is not in the nature of reimbursement. The appellant could have harbored some doubt about the question of includibility of reimbursement and the assessable value. But they could not have possibly harbored any doubt regarding the nature of service provided by them being clearing and forwarding agent service and its liability to service tax. Even if they had to doubt regarding the includibility of the reimbursement charges in the assessable value they should have paid the service tax on the balance amount which was not reimburs....