2018 (2) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ates to three issues, namely, (a) The liability to pay service tax on various expenses incurred by the appellants which is claimed as reimbursable expenditure from their principal during the course of providing C&F Agents Service; (b) Liability to pay service tax under GTA Service for goods transported by the principal to the premises managed by the appellant; and (c) Delayed payment of service tax for the month of Nov. '07- Dec.'07 will amount to short-payment of service tax with intention for evasion. 2. The original authority held against the appellants to confirm the demands raised in the show-cause notice dated 26.03.2008. He confirmed service tax demand for Rs. 7,68,617/- and Rs. 43,33,967/- on these disputes and also impos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e learned counsel submitted that for two months, the service tax liability could not be discharged in time due to administrative reasons. They have not misrepresented or suppressed the fact as the payment of tax was discharged later in Jan. '08, Interest liability, if any, is to be borne by the appellant. Delay in payment of service tax itself will not amount to evasion of tax. The statutory return for the impugned duty is to be filed only in Apr. '08. As such, he is contesting the finding of the impugned order that the appellants have not paid tax, inviting penal consequences. 6. Learned Authorised Representative contested the appeal. He submitted that on GTA Service that 'Consignor' or 'Consignee' is not defined....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uch, there is no justification to include such actual reimbursable expenditure in the taxable value at the hands of the appellants. In this connection, the learned counsel referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Amit Sales Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I reported in 2017 (47) S.T.R. 156 (Tri. -Del.). The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs M/s. Sangamitra Services Agency reported in 2014 (33) S. T.R. 137 (Mad). He also referred to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Inter-continental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in 2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del.). As such, we find no merit in the finding of the origina....