9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessable value. However, we find that since during the period of dispute, there were conflicting decisions on the point 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 (2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and Uniworth Textile Ltd. (2013 (1) TMI 616 - SUPREME COURT), 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 ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the C F Agents service being provided by them. It was also found that no service tax was being paid on the amount received for packaging service. On this basis after issue of show cause notice, the jurisdictional Addl. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 11.11.2008 confirmed service tax demand of Rs.13,09,230/- in respect of C F Agent services besides confirming demand of Rs.2,00,650/- in respect of packaging service. Besides this, he also demanded interest on the service tax demand and also imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Addl. Commissioners order, the same was dismissed vide order-in-appeal no.IND/1/153/08 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though a stay order, is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. He also pleaded that the period of dispute in this case is from April, 2002 to September, 2006, while the show cause notice was issued only on 31.3.2007 by invoking the extended period, that the extended period under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act is not invokable inasmuch as in view of the conflicting judgements on the issue involved in this case , it cannot be alleged that the appellant had deliberately contravened the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder with an intent to evade service tax and in this regard he relies upon the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Continental Foundation Joint Venture Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessable value of the C F Agent services for payment of service tax. Though during the period of dispute, there were conflicting decisions on this issue, the issue now stands decided in favour of the department by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Bhagavathy Traders (supra), wherein the Tribunal after considering the earlier judgements in the cases of Al-Baith Steel (P) Ltd. (supra), S K Enterprises (supra), E.V. Mathai Co. reported in 2006 (3)STR 116 and Rolex Logistics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (13) STR 147 (Tribunal) etc. has held that only when the service recipient is having obligation, legal or contractual, to pay certain amount to any third party and the said amount is paid by the service provider on beh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
