2009 (7) TMI 276 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation C/F Agent service - Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand of Service Tax on the ground that charges reimbursed by the principals towards transportation, communication, labour and electricity etc. is not includible in the assessable value for levy of Service Tax - The Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into the terms and conditions of the agreement in question while holding that impugned charges are not includible to the assessable value - The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether charges reimbursed by principals towards various expenses are includible in the assessable value for levy of Service Tax.
2. Whether there is a composite contract for providing C&F service, making the respondent liable to pay Service Tax on the gross amount received.
3. Whether the impugned order correctly interpreted the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of charges reimbursed by principals towards transportation, communication, labour, and electricity in the assessable value for Service Tax levy. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the demand for Service Tax based on the argument that such charges were not to be included. The Tribunal noted that in cases of separate contracts, the assessee could argue that services not liable for Service Tax should not be included in the gross amount received. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not thoroughly examine the terms of the agreement in question, leading to a remand for reconsideration.

In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on previous decisions to support the exclusion of reimbursed amounts from the assessable value for Service Tax. The Tribunal referenced a case involving E.V. Mathai & Co., where reimbursement was treated as abatement due to different contracts and services. Additionally, the Tribunal cited a case involving Commr. of C. Excise, Jaipur v. Metal Engg. & Forging Co., establishing that the gross amount received under a composite contract is subject to Service Tax. Since the terms and conditions of the agreement were not adequately reviewed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity for the respondent to be heard.

The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a reevaluation highlights the importance of a thorough examination of contractual terms in determining the assessable value for Service Tax. The principles established in previous cases regarding reimbursement and composite contracts played a significant role in the Tribunal's decision to ensure proper application of Service Tax regulations. This case serves as a reminder of the necessity for detailed analysis and consideration of all relevant factors in tax assessment matters.