TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s both from Mumbai Head Office and Kolkata Branch Office during the period 2004-05 to 2006-07. (ii) During the period 2004-05 and 2005-06, the Appellant was registered in Mumbai vide Service Tax Code (STC) No AABCD9380QST001 and all the invoices were being raised from its Mumbai Head Office only in respect of services provided from Mumbai Head Office as well as from Kolkata Branch Office. Further the Appellant duly discharged the Service Tax payable in respect of services provided from both Mumbai Head Office and Kolkata Branch Office under the Mumbai STC only. However, the Kolkata Branch Office was subsequently registered in Kolkata vide Service Tax Code (STC) No AABCD9380QST002 w.e.f. 14.06.2006. Accordingly, from 2006-07, the Appellant started raising invoices independently from Kolkata Branch Office in respect of services provided from Kolkata Branch Office and started discharging applicable Service Tax on the taxable service provided. The Kolkata Branch Office also started filing the periodical Service Tax Returns for Kolkata Branch separately with the jurisdictional Service Tax authority at Kolkata. (iii) ABP Private Limited, (hereinafter referred to as 'ABP') is engaged ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kolkata office. In Kolkata also the Appellant did not pay any Service Tax on the Debit Notes raised by the Appellant for reimbursement of the amount paid to PPE. In this regard, the Appellant submits that there has not been any dispute whatsoever in regard to Service Tax paid on the commission of 7.65% charged to ABP by the Appellant including the other fees charged by the Appellant to ABP in terms of Schedule 1 of the Appeal. (viii) The core issue involved in the instant appeal is whether the amount reimbursed by ABP to the Appellant on actual basis towards the direct cost of ABP operations in terms of the written agreement shall be leviable to Service Tax in terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 5(1) of the Service tax Determination of Value Rules, 2006. (ix) The Appellant submits that for managing the manpower supplied by M/s. P. P. Enterprise for the operations of ABP, the Appellant received consideration in the form of agency commission, to the extent of 7.65% of the direct cost as per SCHEDULE - 1 of the agreement dated 16.06.2004. The bills raised by M/s. P. P. Enterprise to the Appellant were reimbursed by ABP in terms of SCHEDULE - 1 of the agree....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act or the Rules made thereunder with the intent to evade payment of Service Tax. (iii) The Appellant further states that present dispute involves interpretation of valuation of service. In this regard it is a settled position of law that when the matter involves interpretation of statutory provisions, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. This view has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PADMINI PRODUCTS VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EX. reported in 1989 (8) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT (iv) The Appellant is duly registered with the Central Excise Department with proper Service Tax registration. They have been filing their ST-3 Returns regularly after obtaining registration in Kolkata. For the prior period 2004 & 2005-2006, they were registered under Mumbai Jurisdiction with Service Tax Registration AABCD9380QST001. They were filing all their Returns with their Jurisdictional authorities. Further all the values obtained and used for quantification of demand have been derived by the Department from their Balance Sheet, Trial Balance and Profit & Loss Account as can be seen from Annexure C to the Show Cause Notice. (Page 74 of the Appeal Paper Book).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein it is seen that they are getting fees under various headings. They are also getting reimbursement for direct cost of ABP operations as reimbursement. From the statements annexed, it is seen that the Appellant is raising the Debit Note for the exact amount what they are paying, they are paying to M/s PP Enterprises who have been outsourced by the Appellant for carrying on some activities like survey, sales, payments, collection etc. For the entire period, 2004-2005 to 2006-07, the Appellant has clearly demonstrated that they have collected the exact amount what they have paid to PP Enterprise. 8. Annexure C of the Show Cause Notice shows the calculation Sheet prepared by the Department to issue the demand. It is seen from this Annexure C that the demand is made clearly indicating the Service Tax payable, Service Tax paid and short payment of Service Tax. For the period 2004-2005 and 2005-06, they have held that no Service Tax is paid for the period 2006-2007. They have taken into account the Service Tax paid by the Kolkata unit and have arrived at the short payment of Service Tax. It is seen from the record that the Appellants were not registered at Kolkata during the p....