2008 (1) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... postage and telegraph, printing and stationary, telephone charges, sundry expenses etc. incurred by them for and on behalf of their principals. The Assistant Commissioner in his Order-in- Original dated 16.02.2006 demanded the service tax on the gross amount charged from the client for the services rendered, which includes the amount received as reimbursement for the period from 01.04.2001 to 30.09.2004 with interest. The appellants challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals). They relied on various case laws. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original. 3. The appellants have filed a written submission and urged the following points:  (a) The additional demand on account of reimbursement received is e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vy should be issued within one year of the relevant date. Relevant date has been defined in Subsection 6 of the Section 73 as the date of filing the periodical return. In terms of these provisions, the dates of limitation are as follows:   Return Period Date of Filing of Return Latest Date before which Show Cause should have been issued  Date of Show Cause Notice April 2001 to September 2001 28th January  2002 27th January 2003 14th June 2005 October 2001 to March 2002   25th April 2002 24th April 2003 14th June 2005 April 2002 to September 2002   25th October 2002 25th October 2003            14th June 2005 October 2002 to March 2003 &n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e tax only for the charges received in respect of the services and not on the reimbursements. Rs.12,000/- per month is the rent for the godown which is reimbursed by the principal. According to the appellant this amount does not represent the charges received for rendering services to their principals. There is no justification for levying service tax on this amount. Similarly, in respect of other reimbursements, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the gross amount received is liable to service tax which includes all the reimbursements. I find that the case laws cited by the appellant have held that the reimbursements of actual expenses incurred on behalf of the appellants are not liable to service tax. Following the ratio of the cited cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X