TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1491
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Asstt. Commr.) AR - for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the amount of EPF and ESI contribution which are reimbursed to them in the course of providing security agency services to their clients. 2. The brief facts as per the show cause notice dated 21st April, 2006, relating to the period from 01 October, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed from the clients. The said letter further clarified that service tax were being paid on the amount re-presenting the administrative charges only. The said letter also clarified that the taxable amount shown in ST-3 returns was not 10% of the gross value, rather it varied from 5% to 15% being the administrative charges received. The remaining amount being the cost directly related to the servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed demand was confirmed with equal amount of penalty under Section 78 and further penalty also levied under Section 76 alongwith interest. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order was pleased to set aside the penalty under Section 78 but however, confirmed the demand of service tax alongwith interest. The penalty under section 76 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the impugned order is directly in conflict with the order of the Hon'ble High Court and accordingly fit to be set aside. The learned counsel also points out that in spite of the categorical stand taken in February 2001, the show cause notice has been issued in April 2006. Further it is pointed out that the said order of Hon'ble High Court attained finality and Revenue have not preferred any furt....