2012 (3) TMI 717 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Original confirming Service Tax demand and penalties u/s Finance Act, 1994.

The Appellants, a clearing and forwarding agent, filed Appeals against Order-in-Original confirming Service Tax demand and penalties u/s Finance Act, 1994. The demand was for Rs. 99,32,373/- and Rs. 58,36,043/-, imposed on the Appellant No. (1) and its Director u/s various provisions of Finance Act, 1994. The Appellant Firm was registered as a service provider falling under Chapter 5 of the Finance Act, 1994. Proceedings were initiated for not paying Service Tax on the actual value received. Two show cause-cum-demand notices were issued, proposing penalties as well. The learned Commissioner confirmed the proposals, leading to the Appeals.

The contention of the Appellants' Advocate was that the demand lacked statutory support, the Commissioner exceeded the show cause notices' scope, and did not consider the time limitation. They also mentioned not being able to attend the hearing despite being granted one. They believed the deductions claimed were allowable based on conflicting decisions.

The Department's AR argued that the deductions denied were addressed in various case laws. They highlighted that subsequent decisions were made after the Order-in-Original, including guidelines on reimbursement charges by a Larger Bench in a specific case.

In response, the Appellants' Advocate argued that the reimbursement aspect was already clarified in earlier decisions before the Larger Bench's ruling. They requested to keep all issues open if the matter is remanded.

The Tribunal noted that the decisions cited were not before the Commissioner. The Larger Bench's guidelines on reimbursement charges were considered, emphasizing that costs for inputs services cannot be treated as reimbursable. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration based on the guidelines, with all issues kept open for both parties to produce supporting documents. A reasonable opportunity of hearing was to be provided to the Appellants. The Appeals were allowed by way of remand.