9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Service tax of Rs. 52,542/- from the appellants under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest thereon at the rate of 1.5% per month under Section 75 of the Act and imposed penalties on them under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act. This decision of the original authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) whose order is under challenge in Appeal No. S/1/2002. For the subsequent period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from the place of clearance of goods (except in cases of delivery at godown). The agreement had also enabled the C&F Agent to obtain remuneration for the services rendered by them to the companies. The appellants did not include certain expenses incurred by them on behalf of the companies in connection with the C&F Service rendered to the latter, in the gross value for the purpose of payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was excluded from value of taxable service for the said period was to the tune of Rs. 23,84,665/-. This decision of the original authority was concurred with by the Commissioner (Appeals). Neither of the orders was challenged by the department. Hence, at this point of time, it is not in dispute that the actual expenses of the C&F Agent, reimbursed by the companies, towards freight was not liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that all such expenses were incurred by the C&F Agent in connection with rendering of Clearing and Forwarding Service and, therefore, the moneys received as reimbursement from the companies towards such expenses would form part of the value of taxable service. 5. In the result, Appeal No. S/1 /2002 is dismissed and Appeal No. S/4/2004 is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the original auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
