9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, the consideration has to include all amounts charged for providing service. This should include the fixed as well as variable parts of the consideration received by the appellant. This brings us to the claim of the appellant that he functioned as a pure agent of the service receiver and hence the amount reimbursed by M/s Lafarge India Limited cannot form part of value of taxable service. The first appellate authority has clearly given a finding that the appellant has not satisfied the conditions prescribed in Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 to satisfy the criteria for a pure agent. Therefore, no reason found to defer from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Order-in-Appeal both on time limit as well as on merit. Challenge on time limit is on the basis of the fact that the Revenue had already taken up an identical issue vide show cause notice No. 652 dated 24.04.2007 covering the period October, 2001 to March, 2002 alleging suppression and hence the Revenue cannot invoke suppression clause one more time for the same issue. They have also claimed that the department has been kept informed (with a copy of the agreement with M/s Lafarge India Limited) that service tax is being discharged only the variable portion of commission. On merit the appellant has claimed that he is a pure agent of M/s Lafarge India Limited and hence the reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of M/s Lafarge India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration received by the appellant. This brings us to the claim of the appellant that he functioned as a pure agent of the service receiver and hence the amount reimbursed by M/s Lafarge India Limited cannot form part of value of taxable service. The first appellate authority has clearly given a finding that the appellant has not satisfied the conditions prescribed in Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 to satisfy the criteria for a pure agent. We find no reason to defer from that view and hence uphold the merits of the order. However, the demand will need to be reworked out for the normal time limit under Section 73. Consequently the various penalties imposed on the appellant would need to be modified. The or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
