2018 (7) TMI 788 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - inclusion of reimbursable amounts in assessable value - support services business or commerce - customs house agent service - Held that - It does not offer any justifications on the manner in which the amounts claimed to be reimbursable expenses, and not related to the registered services, conformed to the definition of taxable service. Except to point out that the show cause notice had adequately covered the charges, the grounds of appeal appear to give the impression that the impugned order is bereft of a finding on merit. It is in that context that this appeal needs disposal. In the absence of any justifiable challenge on merit in the grounds of appeal, we are also unable to fill the gaps in the review order. Nor are we required to. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-original for recovery of tax on support services and customs house agent service.
2. Justification for exclusion of substantial amounts from assessable value.
3. Tax liability on freight element and reimbursable expenses.
4. Prolixity in the impugned order and lack of evidence.
5. Examination of jurisdiction, specificity of allegations, and merit of the claim.
6. Grounds for appeal lacking justification and seeking remand for fresh proceedings.
7. Dismissal of Revenue's appeal.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against an order-in-original by the Revenue seeking recovery of tax on 'support services business or commerce' and 'customs house agent' service. The Commissioner of Service Tax dropped the proposal for recovery of substantial amounts from the assessable value. The tax authorities argued that the exclusion of these amounts was unjustified, relating to contracts for logistic support for importing goods. The dispute centered on the tax liability concerning the freight element and reimbursable expenses. The impugned order was criticized for prolixity and lack of evidence, with the reviewing authority defending the show cause notice's validity and the adjudicating authority's failure to assess the exclusion from the assessable value.

The Tribunal examined the jurisdiction, specificity of allegations, and the merit of the claims. It was noted that the definition of the services in question did not cover the activities subject to taxation. The adjudicating authority referenced judicial decisions, circulars, and rules to conclude that the levy was erroneously imposed. Despite this, the Revenue sought a remand for fresh proceedings. However, the Tribunal, considering the adjudicated findings and the lack of a justifiable challenge on merit in the appeal grounds, dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no grounds to warrant a fresh adjudication or to address gaps in the review order, ultimately upholding the decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeal.