2007 (10) TMI 143 - AT - Service Tax

Tax can be charged only on the amount received for the services rendered Service Tax no chargeable for the amounts charged as reimbursement - documents which indicated the amounts to be refunded to their clients not viewed by Comm(A) properly matter remanded for de novo consideration

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original regarding Service Tax liability, including demand, interest, and penalties.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Original No. 11/2000 ST passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Cochin. The appellants, engaged in providing Steamer Agency and Custom House Agency services, were alleged to have not paid Service Tax on taxable service value received. The demand was for Rs.2,61,35,485 under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, with interest under Section 75 and various penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78. The appellants contested the order, arguing that certain amounts termed as "other incomes" were not subject to Service Tax as they were to be refunded to clients. They presented documentary evidence to support their claim and challenged the penalties imposed. The departmental representative supported the original order.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that Service Tax should only apply to amounts received for services rendered. The Commissioner had denied the exemption for certain expenses reimbursed due to lack of documentary evidence. However, during the hearing, the appellants provided documents indicating amounts to be refunded to clients, which were not adequately considered. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not thoroughly examine the factual information provided and that the appellants had not suppressed facts to evade tax. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that Service Tax should not apply to reimbursement amounts and excess collections unrelated to services rendered.

Furthermore, the Tribunal identified various errors in the original order, including miscalculations and omissions related to different types of agency incomes. Due to these defects, the Tribunal set aside the original order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication within three months, keeping all issues open for review. The decision was pronounced at the conclusion of the hearing.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, findings, and errors identified in the judgment, leading to the decision to remand the case for further review and adjudication.