2017 (9) TMI 234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... effect from 1.5.2006. The period involved in the present dispute is from 2006 2007 to 2009-2010. During the above period, the appellant has discharged the service tax liability on 20% of commission received by them from ICICI Bank. Their claim is that rest 80% is towards actual expenses incurred by them on behalf of ICICI Bank. Their claim is that 80% of the commission received will be deductible in terms of Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. However, the department was of the view that the appellant does not satisfy the conditions prescribed under Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax Rules to justify such exclusion as pure agent. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued and service tax was ordered to be paid vid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t part of the actual ST 3 return filed by the assessee, the same should not be given any credence. As regards the correspondence, learned DR submits that same started with effect from 17.12.2007 i.e. the date of first letter was written by them on 17.12.2007 and as such, the appellant should be made to deposit the service tax for the period prior to the said letter inasmuch as the period started from 2006 onwards. 6. The first issue for consideration before us is whether the appellant will be entitled to exclude 80% of the commission received from ICICI Bank while payment of service tax. 7. We have perused the relevant clauses of agreement between the appellant and the ICICI Bank. We find that the agreement nowhere mentions that the a....