2018 (10) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the appellant: Shri Jigar Shah, Ms. Priyanka Kalwani (Adv.)/ AR For the respondent: Mr. A. Mishra, Dy. Commr., (AR)/ Advocate ORDER Per: Raju The appeal has been filed by M/s Uniway Distributors as well as by Revenue against the order passed by Commissioner (A) confirming the demand of Service tax, interest and imposing penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, while dropping pen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... commission paid to such agent by the client for engaging such agent. She argued that in a similar circumstance in the case of Sangmitra Service Agency 2014 (33) STR 137 (Mad.), the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has held that such amounts reimbursed as per contract would not be includable in the assessable value in light of Rule 8 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. In para 6 and 7 of the order, Hon'bl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7. We do not agree with the said contention. In the absence of any material to show the understanding between the Principal and the Client that the Commission payable by the principal was all inclusive, it is difficult to hold that the gross amount of remuneration/commission would nevertheless include expenditure incurred by the assessee providing the services; that all incidental charges for r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018(10) GSTL 401 (SC). She further argued that the issue was an issue of interpretation and these circumstances extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. 3. Ld. AR relied on the impugned order. He argued that from the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant it can be seen that they have not challenged the confirmation of demand on merit. The only challenge i....