2025 (12) TMI 1250

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Department and set aside the Order-in-Original and confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 11,58,500/-. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the services of 'Rent-a-cab' and 'Tour Operator Services' under Chapter 5 of the Finance Act, 1994. During the course of audit of the record of the appellant covering the period 2003-04 to 2007-08, it was observed that the party has collected Rs. 7,33,745/-as toll tax and Rs. 63,61,239/- as UP permit tax (Total Rs. 70,94,984/-) levied by the State Government from client during 2007-08. It was also observed that out of total amount, they had deposited with the state authorities only Rs. 52,99,957/-. The audit group held the view ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the respondent has confirmed the demand on the ground that the appellant received the reimbursement of toll tax and U.P. permit Tax which is to be included in transaction value as per Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. He further submits that cost on account of toll tax and U.P. permit tax cannot be included in taxable value and cannot be formed part of the assessable value in view of Section 5(1) of the Valuation Rules, 2006. He further submits that this issue is no more res integra and has been decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India reported as 2013 (29) STR 9 (Del.), which stands upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... • Coca Cola India Inc. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi decided on 18.10.2024 4.3 He further submits that the demand has been confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation alleging suppression of material facts by the appellant. He further submits that the appellant has not suppressed any fact from the department and what was not in the knowledge of the appellant, cannot be suppressed by the appellant. He also submits that it is a matter of interpretation as to whether particular expenses are to be included in transaction value or not. He also submits that Revenue has invoked the extended period based on audit which is not permissible under law. On the basis of audit as held in the following cases: â€....