TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Service Tax on the part of the appellant during the concerned period. 3. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant on 04.10.2019 demanding Service Tax of Rs.9,38,725/- (inclusive of cess), along with interest and penalty thereon. 3.1. Upon adjudication of the above notice, the demand of Service Tax of Rs.9,38,725/- (inclusive of cess), as demanded in the Show Cause Notice, was confirmed, along with interest, vide the Order-inOriginal No. 34/DC/CGST/SLG-DIV/20-21 dated 25.02.2021. A penalty equivalent to the above Service Tax demand was also imposed on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the ld. adjudicating authority. 3.2. The appellant challenged the aforesaid Order-in-Original before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who, vide the impugned order, has upheld the demands confirmed therein. 3.3. Aggrieved by the confirmation of the above demand of Service Tax, along with interest and penalty thereon, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the demand of service tax confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable as th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he specific exclusion such reimbursements from the taxable value under Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 as the amounts were claimed as a 'pure agent'. 4.2. In view of the above submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside the demand of Service Tax, along with interest and penalty, as confirmed against them vide the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. She submits that from May 14, 2015, the Finance Act, 2015, amended Section 67 to specifically include "reimbursable expenditure or cost incurred and charged by the service provider" in the value of taxable services. Thus, the exclusions claimed by the appellant cannot be allowed after the said amendment. Accordingly, she justified the demands confirmed in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 7. With regard to the contentions raised by the appellant on the ground of limitation, I find that the appellant has been registered with the Department and also filing their Service Tax Returns regularly. It is on record that the Show Ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice Tax Department for the compliance up to the financial year 2013-14. Since the records have been duly audited, the demand cannot be raised for the same period on account of change in the opinion. Further, we find that the Appellant had duly submitted the VAT Returns which have been recorded by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. 9. In the VAT return for the financial year 2015-16, the Appellant has duly disclosed the sales turnover of Rs. 8,13,46,124/- on which VAT has been duly paid, whereas the impugned demand has been raised considering the value of taxable services to be Rs. 8,28,06,929/- by taking higher of the amount appearing in profit and loss account and the Income Tax Return. Similarly, for the financial year 201617, the value of taxable services have been considered to be Rs. 8,96,52,728/- whereas the appellant has duly disclosed the sales turnover of Rs. 8,79,88,828/- in its VAT return on which VAT has been paid at applicable rate. From the above, it appears that the major demand has been computed on the sales turnover. 10. In so far as the issue of limitation is concerned, we do not find any ingredient of fraud or suppression with an intent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll be made by BIL to the C&F Agent within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of bill alongwith necessary supporting documents thereof." 9.1. From the above, I find that the appellant has received a fixed remuneration as well as reimbursable expenses. As per 'Annexure-B' of the agreement, the appellant has received a fixed remuneration of Rs.58,500/- in terms of the clauses mentioned therein, on which the appellant has discharged Service Tax. There is no dispute on this. 9.2. However, the appellant has not paid Service Tax in respect of the other portion viz. reimbursable expenses received by them from the principal. A perusal of the above agreement indicates that the other expenses have been incurred by the appellant on behalf of the principal, as a 'pure agent' and the said expenses have been reimbursed by the principal on actual basis. Thus, I find that the above reimbursable expenses have been incurred by the appellant as a 'pure agent'. Prior to May 14, 2015, reimbursable expenses were generally not liable to service tax if they were actual expenses incurred by the service provider on behalf of the service recipient. However, with effect from May 14, 2015, ....