2018 (4) TMI 1242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No. 40/2015-2016 dated 19/01/2016. The period of dispute is April, 2009 to March, 2014. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing storage and warehouse service including providing the storage space, infrastructure, inventory management, etc. Further, the appellant is also providing Goods Transportation Agency (GTA) Services for pickup and drop of the goods for and from the warehouse. The appellant has entered into an agreement with the client M/s Nokia Seimens Networks Pvt Ltd. and alike where all the services were mentioned separately and separate charges were mentioned for each and every services. The claim of the appellant is that as per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the ratio laid down in the above mentioned cases we uphold that prior to 01/07/2012 the services, though mentioned in a composite agreement, will have to be treated differently as they were mentioned separately and along with the table of the charges. 9. After 01/7/2012 the issue will have to be examined afresh by the adjudicating authority but by providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant. 10. The second grievance of the appellant is pertaining to the reimbursement bill expanses. In the show cause notice, the service tax was demanded on 'reimbursable expenses' under Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination Value) Rules, 2006 from the Appellant. But fact remains that Rule 5(1) has been assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edit of Rs. 3,70,97,300/- and allow the same as per law." 13. After hearing both the parties and perusal of record, we find nothing wrong in the above mentioned observation. As per the direction (supra), the authority will have to examine the genuineness of the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3.71 Cr. Only. In this regard, it is evident that Service Tax on storage and warehousing charges was being paid prior to VCES period and also declared and paid during VCES period through declaration, which has been held as correct in the impugned order. During the subsequent period also penalty along with the interest (if applicable) is paid before the issue of show cause notice. When it is so then penalty will not be leviable as per the ratio laid in the case....