9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 35 & 36/07 S.T.,dated 14-5-2007passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin. 2. The issue involved in both the cases is one and the same. Therefore, I am taking up the matter for passing a common order. The appellants are engaged in the services of Clearing and Forwarding Agencies. Revenue proceeded against them on the ground that they had not paid the service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments that the circulars of the Board are binding and the Authorities cannot deviate from the circular even if it is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Further, he pointed out that the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 was introduced w.e.f.18-4-2006 which by way of Rule 5 provided for inclusion of all expenses and costs incurred by the service provider in the course of providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sements are not to be included in the value of the service tax. 5. The learned Departmental Representative reiterated the impugned Orders-in-Appeal and said that in terms of the law, the gross amount received by the appellant should be taken for computing the service tax liability. 6. On a very careful consideration of the issue, I find that the services rendered by the appellant in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 (Tri-Bang) = 2006-TIOL-1189-CESTAT-BANG.
7. Further there is absolutely no justification for imposition of any penalty on the appellants as they were under the bona fide belief that the reimbursement should not be included in the value of the taxable service. In these circumstances, I allow the appeals with consequential relief.
(Pronounced in open Court on 17-1-2008)
X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
