TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder-in-Appeal Nos. 63&64/2015 (STA-II) dated 17.02.2015 by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-II), Chennai who have upheld the Orders-in-Original No. 28/2010 dated 01.12.2010 and No. 15/2011 dated 27.12.2011. The Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax vide in his Order-in-Original dated 01.12.2010 has confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.1,52,640/- along with interest and imposed equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax vide in his Order-in-Original dated 27.12.2011 has confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.52,363/- along with interest and also imposed a penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion demanding tax along with applicable interest and for imposition of penalty. 2.4 On adjudication of these two Show Cause Notices, the Original Adjudicating Authorities have passed the Orders-in-Original dated 01.12.2010 and 27.12.2011 confirming the demand of tax plus interest and also imposed penalty. 2.5 When the Appellant filed appeals against these Orders-in-Original, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the orders of the Original Adjudicating Authority. Being aggrieved, the Appellant came on appeal before this Tribunal. 3.1 The Ld. Advocate Mr. M. Karthikeyan representing the Appellant has submitted that it was incorrectly recorded at Paragraph 11 of the impugned Order-in-Appeal Nos. 63&64/2015 (STA-II) dated 17.02.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... iii. T.V.S. Motor Co. Ltd. [2012 (28) STR 150 (Tri.-Chennai)] iv. T.V.S. Motor Co. Ltd. [2021 (9) TMI 81 - CESTAT CHENNAI)] v. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts (P) Ltd. [2011 (21) STR 583 (Tri.-Bang.)] 3.5 It is further submitted that even if the air ticket charges are added to the taxable value, the Appellant would be eligible to take credit of the entire tax paid and as such, the question of suppression or any manner of intentional evasion would not arise. As there is no revenue loss to the Government Exchequer, the demand raised invoking extended period is not sustainable. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. Harendra Singh Pal representing the Department has supported the findings in the impugned order date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....expenditure was shared by the service recipients and this expenditure having not been paid to the service provider cannot constitute the consideration and so, no tax is payable. Rule 7 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 is required to be referred to in order to arrive at the correct value of taxable services provided from outside India and the relevant Rule is reproduced below: - "7. Actual consideration to be the value of taxable service provided from outside India (1) The value of taxable service received under the provisions of Section 66A, shall be such amount as is equal to the actual consideration charged for the services provided or to be provided. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment provided that the agent shall provide services of promoting and marketing of the product sold to M/s. Nebula Trading Co. in the interior parts of Myanmar and the expenses to be incurred for travelling tickets, telephone charges, postage, hotel accommodation, fooding, etc.; appellant reimbursed the expenses incurred by Shri S. Gupta on the actuals as per the bills raised by Shri S. Gupta. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the reversecharge mechanism under the category of 'business auxiliary services' as it is undisputed that Shri S. Gupta has rendered services of promoting and marketing of the appellant's goods. 4. The learned counsel brings to our notice the factual matrix of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, if any, to Shri S. Gupta. On perusal of the agreement entered into by the appellant with Shri S. Gupta, we find that there is no mention of any commission payable to Shri S. Gupta by the appellant. If the appellant has not paid any commission and has only reimbursed the actual expenses incurred, in our view, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrafts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) will directly apply and the said expenses cannot be taxed under 'business auxiliary service'. 8. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. 5.14 We also find that provisions of Rule 7(1) of the Service Tax (Determination ....