2026 (8) TMI 1601

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Appellant is a Custom House Agent and holders of service tax registration. It is the case of the Revenue that during the audit conducted by the officers of Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai, it was noticed that the Appellant had collected Rs. during the period from 2007 08 to 2010 11 but had not paid service tax on Rs. claiming that this amount was collected by them as 'pure agent' towards LCL charges, deconsolidation charges, transportation charges, DO charges, terminal handling charges, demurrage charges, documentation charges etc. and were excludible from taxable value in view of Rule 5 (1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. However, since the Assessee could not produce any documents in support of the claim of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sequently, the same was reimbursed from their clients; • In none of the reimbursements, there is any 'mark up'; • Since no service tax is liable to be demanded, no penalty is imposable. She relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats (P) Ltd. Vs UOI [2013 (29) STR 9 (Del.)] in support. 4.1 Ld. Advocate also contended that Appellant had already discharged the service tax on the consideration received for the CHA service provided by them and that service tax is to be paid only on the services actually provided by service provider and not on reimbursed expenses. In this regard, she has relied on the following decisions : (a) UOI Vs Intercontinenta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncept under Rule 5 (2) of the Valuation Rules, the Commissioner (Appeals) holds that the Appellant did not submit any contractual agreements either before the Adjudicating Authority or before him, to show that the Appellant had acted as 'pure agent'. Holding so, the demand in the adjudication order came to be upheld. 9. The crux of the Appellant's case is that there is no service tax liability on the reimbursed expenses since, according to the Appellant, various expenses were incurred by them on behalf of their client. But however, the Appellant failed to adduce any evidence which prompted the Adjudicating Authority to hold at para--15 of the Order--in--Original that since the Assessee did not rebut the allegation nor did it produce any ....