2020 (11) TMI 619 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - inclusion of balance amount which is in the nature of Travelling Expenses and Boarding Expenses - reimbursable expenses or not - HELD THAT - The demand is made on the amount that has been incurred by the appellant for travelling as well as lodging expenses. These are nothing but reimbursable expenses and the appellant has paid service on Audit Fee received as consideration for the service rendered - Demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Applicability of service tax on reimbursable expenses incurred by auditors for transport and lodging while rendering services.
- Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and case law.
- Validity of demand for service tax on expenses incurred by the appellant.
- Assessment of the decision of the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals).
- Justification for setting aside the demand and allowing the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The case revolved around the issue of whether reimbursable expenses incurred by auditors for transport and lodging while rendering services are subject to service tax. The appellants, appointed as auditors for TASMAC shops, received an Audit Fee per shop but only discharged service tax on a portion of the amount, excluding the balance amount for Travelling Expenses and Boarding Expenses. The department contended that the appellant should include these expenses for payment of service tax, leading to a demand for the differential tax, interest, and penalties. The original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, prompting the appeal.

2. In the appellant's defense, it was argued that the expenses in question were reimbursable expenses incurred for transport and lodging to provide auditing services. The appellant cited a decision of the Apex Court in a relevant case to support this argument. Upon perusal of the records, the Tribunal found that the demand was based on expenses incurred by the appellant for travel and lodging, which were indeed reimbursable expenses. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had already paid service tax on the Audit Fee received as consideration for the services rendered, leading to the decision that the demand could not be sustained.

3. The Tribunal's analysis highlighted the nature of the expenses as reimbursable and the fact that service tax had already been paid on the Audit Fee, which covered the services provided. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the demand, interest, and penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any. The decision was based on the interpretation of legal provisions and relevant case law, emphasizing the distinction between the Audit Fee and the reimbursable expenses incurred by the appellant.

4. The judgment not only addressed the specific issue of service tax on reimbursable expenses but also provided a detailed reasoning for setting aside the demand and allowing the appeal. By citing the relevant case law and interpreting the facts of the case in light of legal provisions, the Tribunal established a clear justification for its decision, ensuring a fair and comprehensive analysis of the matter at hand.