2015 (7) TMI 232 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - Inclusion of warehousing charges and other reimbursables - Held that - Issue of includibility of warehousing and other reimbursables in the value of C&F agent service has been a subject matter of several judicial pronouncements. In the case of K.D. Sales Corporation Vs. CCE, Belgaum 2006 (12) TMI 52 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , it was held that godown rent and clerk salary are not includible in the assessable value of C&F agent service. In the case of Nandini Warehousing Corporation Vs. CCE, Belgaum 2007 (4) TMI 139 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , it was held that godown rent, establishment expenses, incentives, STD call charges, are excludible from the assessable value of C&F agent service. - reimbursable expenses received by the assessee need not be added to the taxable value relating to clearing and forwarding agents service and that the receipt is for reimbursing expenditure incurred for the purpose and the mere act of reimbursement per se would not justify the contention of Revenue that the same was having the character of the remuneration or commission for the purpose of Rule 6(8) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Decision in the case of CCE, Chennai Vs. Sangamitra Services Agency 2013 (7) TMI 862 - MADRAS HIGH COURT followed - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Inclusion of warehousing charges and other reimbursables in the assessable value for service tax calculation
- Whether the extended period is invocable due to intentional suppression of facts by the respondent
- Levying of mandatory penalty based on intentional suppression of facts

Analysis:
1. Inclusion of Warehousing Charges and Reimbursables: The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Appeal that set aside the service tax demand, arguing that warehousing charges and other reimbursables related to C&F agent services should be included in the assessable value for service tax calculation. The Revenue contended that such charges were part of the gross amount charged for the service rendered, as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent, however, cited various judgments to support their claim that these charges should not be included, as they were not directly related to the C&F agent service but rather miscellaneous work done for the service recipient.

2. Judicial Pronouncements: The Tribunal considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of includibility of warehousing charges and other reimbursables in the value of C&F agent services. Previous cases such as K.D. Sales Corporation Vs. CCE and Nandini Warehousing Corporation Vs. CCE held that certain expenses like godown rent, establishment expenses, and incentives were not includible in the assessable value. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to the case of Sangamitra Services Agency Vs. CCE, where it was held that reimbursement of actual expenses like freight and electricity should not be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal also highlighted the Madras High Court's decision and the Supreme Court's dismissal of appeals, supporting the exclusion of reimbursable expenses from the taxable value.

3. Decision: After analyzing the legal precedents and arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the judicial pronouncements and legal interpretations supported the exclusion of warehousing charges and other reimbursables from the assessable value for service tax calculation. The Tribunal's decision was based on the evolving legal landscape and the interpretation of relevant laws and judgments, ultimately favoring the respondent in this case.