TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1820
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause notice dated 22-10-2017. The Learned Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand as under : "Order" (i) I, hereby confirm the demand of Service Tax leviable on foreign remittances for the period from 18-4-2006 to 31-3-2007 and drop the demand of Service Tax on foreign remittances for the period prior to 18-4-2006. (ii) I, hereby, confirm the demand of Service Tax including education cess of Rs. 33,49,442/- only leviable on out of pocket expenses along with appropriate interest. (iii) I, hereby, confirm the demand of Service Tax including education cess of Rs. 10,40,872/- leviable on manpower supply. (iv) I, hereby, confirm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 18-4-2006 has been quashed. (ii) Reliance was placed on the following decisions : (a) Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra - (1978) 3 SCC 544; (b) Devang Rasiklal Vora v. Union of India - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 30 (Bom.); (c) Unique Coordinators v. Union of India - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 396 (Bom.). (iii) No penalty should have been imposed on the appellant as the show cause notice dated 23-10-2007 is issued under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Finance Act). It is submitted that no notice should have been issued to the appellant under Section 73(1) of the Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant to such member firm. These expenses were inadvertently charged to the appellant by the vendors, cab operators, travel agents etc. and the appellant recovered the same from respective entities on actual basis. This fact has been made known to the adjudicating authority. However, the same was not considered. Reliance was placed in the case of J.M. Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I - 2014 (36) S.T.R. 151 (Tri. - Mumbai). The reliance was also placed on the C.B.E. & C. Circular No. B 43/1/97-TRU, dated 6 June, 1997. The Learned Advocate also submitted that in terms of Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 (Valuation Rules, in short) confirmed the demand on the appellant. Rule 5 inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iii) Further, it was submitted that there was no deliberate suppression envisaged on the part of the appellant and the matter related to the interpretation of Service Tax Law which was finally settled by the decision of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It was submitted that when there is a case of interpretation of law there is no scope of suppression by the appellant. Placing reliance on the decision of Hero Motocorp. Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2014 (36) S.T.R. J20 (S.C.). (ix) Learned Advocate also placed that the reimbursement is in the nature of out of pocket expenses which were inadvertently incurred by the appellant from the Indian members of EY firms and placing reliance on C.B.E. & C. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is no scope of levy of any penalty under the provisions of Section 78 of the Act. The Learned Advocate have rightly contended that in this case the duty and interest has been paid before the issuance of show cause notice at their own volition is also not contested by the Department, without being demanded by the Department, therefore, they are entitled for the benefit under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act. The provisions of [Section] 73(3) is reproduced as under : "Section 73(3) provides that where any Service Tax has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, the person chargeable with the Service Tax, or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made, may pay the ....