9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that they had not paid Service Tax due on the value of taxable service amounting to Rs.34,97,48,507/- received by them for extending services to various clients. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued and the Adjudicating Authority demanded a sum of Rs.2,61,35,485/- under the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. In order to demand the above amount, longer period was invoked. Interest was demanded under Section 75 of the Finance Act. Penalty at the rate of Rs.100/- per day was demanded under Section 76 for failure to pay the above amount. The penalty of Rs.i000/- was imposed under Section 77 for contravening the provisions of Section 70 of the said Act. Further, the Adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that these "other incomes" do not represent the amount received for the services rendered. He pointed out that these amounts are to be refunded to the clients by the appellants and therefore, they cannot be charged to Service Tax. Further, he stated that there is documentary evidence to show that these "other incomes" do not represent the amount received for the services rendered and they are actually the excess payments received from the clients and which-have not been returned to them during the year in which, they were received. The other incomes are actual (a) write backs - net payments received from clients but excess not paid back in the year when service was rendered, (b) Again there are certain refundable amounts, for example, it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contention of the assessee on this point." 4.2 In our view, Service Tax can be charged only on the amount received for the services rendered. If the appellants had received amounts in connection with various expenditure incurred on behalf of their clients which are not directly relatable to the service rendered, then no Service Tax can be levied on them. The Commissioner did not give the benefit on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced. However, during the course of personal hearing, the learned advocates produced certain documents which indicated the amounts to be refunded to their clients. In our view, the Commissioner has not examined the factual information provided by the appellants. Moreover, all the details of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppropriate heading would be under "business auxiliary services". (g) Non-exclusion of income earned from the World Food Programme at Mumbai and Kochi, which is otherwise exempt from payment of service tax. (h) Inclusion of refund received from Kandla Port for the year 2000-01 to 2002-03 which payments were received in convertible foreign exchange and therefore exempt. In view of the above defects in the impugned order, we have no other option but to set aside the impugned order and remand the case for de novo adjudication. All l the issues are kept open. The de novo order should be passed within three months from the date of receipt of this order. (Operative portion of this order was pronounced in open Court on conclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
