2024 (10) TMI 628

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts along with the details furnished in the returns for the year 2007-08 to 2011-12, it was observed that the assessee received higher taxable value than the amount shown as taxable value received in their ST-3 Returns during the period 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The assessee did not declare the taxable value actually received by them which resulted in short payment or nonpayment of service tax to the tune of Rs.4,20,162/- and further during the course of audit, the assessee failed to provide cenvat documents to the Departmental Officers for verification for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 as asked for. Accordingly, the cenvat credit of Rs.68,973/- for the impugned period taken by the assessee and utilized thereof is gross violati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....during the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 in connection with "Customs House Agent" service provided by them and did not pay the service tax on the said amount on the ground that the said amount was expenditure incurred on behalf of the service recipient and subsequently reimbursed. 2.4 In view of this, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand to the tune of Rs.4,20,162/- along with interest and penalty was also imposed on the assessee and for the remaining portion, demand of Rs.1,82,60,420/- was dropped and a demand of Rs.68,973/- was also dropped. 2.5 Aggrieved from the said order, both sides are in appeal. 3. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submits that it was alleged for short....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which shows that that against the short payment of Rs.4,20,162/-, the appellant has paid excess amount of Rs.4,62,251/-. Therefore, we hold that the demand of Rs.4,20,162/- is not payable by the assessee. 6. With regard to the appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order, we find that the assessee has later paid the service tax on advance received on Customs House Agent Service and no service tax is payable by the assessee on reimbursable expenses in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Private Limited (supra). 7. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is dismissed. 8. As the Appellant Assessee pai....