Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2012 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 834 - AT - Service TaxTaxability of reimbursable expenses on travel local accommodation, etc. incurred by a Consulting Engineer Following the decision of court in case of Malabar Pvt Services Vs CCE 2007 (10) TMI 135 CESTAT Held that - Such expenses would not form part of assessable value of services rendered by Consulting Engineers. In view of the clarification issued by CBEC and the decisions relied by the appellants, action of the appellant was bonafide and suppression cannot be alleged for invoking extended period of time for demanding such service tax - appeal allowed on this ground.
Issues involved:
Interpretation of reimbursable expenses in service tax valuation; Invocation of extended period for demanding service tax. Analysis: 1. Interpretation of reimbursable expenses: The case involved a dispute regarding whether certain expenses reimbursed to a consulting engineer should be included in the gross value of services rendered for service tax calculation. The Revenue contended that various expenses incurred by the appellant on behalf of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) should have been part of the gross value, leading to a demand for service tax along with penalties. The appellant argued that the expenses were incurred on behalf of NHAI and were reimbursed, thus not forming part of the consideration for the services provided. The appellant relied on CBEC clarifications and previous decisions supporting their stance that such expenses should not be included in the assessable value of services. 2. Invocation of extended period for demanding service tax: The Revenue invoked the extended period for demanding service tax, alleging suppression of information by the appellant. The appellant contested this, pointing out the existence of CBEC clarifications and tribunal decisions supporting their position that the expenses in question should not be considered for service tax calculation. The appellant argued that since there was clarity on this matter and no suppression of information, the extended period should not have been invoked for demanding service tax. 3. Decision: The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and noted the historical dispute regarding the taxability of reimbursable expenses incurred by consulting engineers. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's actions were supported by CBEC instructions and previous decisions. In light of the circumstances and the bonafide belief of the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that suppression could not be alleged for invoking the extended period for demanding service tax. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on the grounds related to the invocation of the extended period for demanding service tax. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal interpretations, and the final decision reached by the Tribunal.
|