9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... packaging services. The dispute is only in respect of the value of the C&F Agent Services. The departments allegation is that during the period of dispute, the appellant were not paying service tax on payment received under following heads:- (1) Godown Rent Rs.48,000/- per month. (2) Charges for unloading from wagons & loading into trucks @30PMT. (3) Other misc. expenses @ Rs.5/- per kg. (4) Charges for transportation from rail head to godown Rs.60/- PMT. (5) Unloading and stocking at godown @ Rs.15/- per MT. (6) Loading for onward movement @Rs.20/- PMT. According to the Department, the above amounts received by the Appellant should be part of assessable value of the C&F Agents service being provided by them. It was also found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of the period prior to introduction of Service Tax (Determination of value) Rules, 2006, taking into account the Boards Circular No.341/11/98/TRU dated 23.08.98 had taken a prima facie view that only the commission received by the C&F Agent would be chargeable to service tax and had granted unconditional waiver and that in view of this in respect of the present appeal, where the period of dispute is prior to 19.04.2006, the service tax would be chargeable only on the commission and not on the reimbursement of actual expenses and as such, the impugned order is not correct. He pleaded that the Tribunals judgement in the case of Y.N. Warehousing Company (supra), though a stay order, is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the appellant did not show the value of the reimbursement in theST-3 Returns, they have suppressed the relevant facts from the Department and hence, longer limitation period has been correctly invoked under Section 73(1) for demand of service tax and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 has been correctly imposed. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 7. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The only point of dispute in this case is as to whether the expenses as mentioned above which were being reimbursed by the principals to the appellants are includible in the assessable value of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int of dispute in this case because of which the appellant could have entertained a bonafide doubt about inclusion of reimbursement expenses in the assessable value, keeping in view the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Continent Federation Joint Venture (supra) and Uniworth Textile Ltd. (supra), neither longer period for demand of short paid service tax can be invoked nor penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act would be imposable. In view of this, we upheld the duty demand only for the normal limitation period, which would be quantified by the original adjudicating authority and would be recoverable from the appellant along with interest. However, imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 78 is set aside. The appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
