9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent Per S.K. Mohanty: Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner (A), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Indore. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is providing Clearing and Forwarding services to, M/s. L&T Ltd. and Ultratech Cement Ltd. As per the terms of agreement, besides receipt of commission for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the record. 4. In the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has held that remuneration or commission received by the agent for providing C&F Service should alone be considered as gross amount for computation of the service tax liability and that sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision by way of incorporation of sub-rule (8) in rule 6 of the Service tax Rules 1994. It is also very important to note that even in respect of period after 19.04.2006 when the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006 came into force, it is worth noting that a perusal of Rule 6 of the said Rules would show that under clause (vii) it is provided that the value of the taxable service if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fulfilled in the instant case and thus in terms of Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006, the reimbursement of expenses are not includable in the assessable value of services provided by the appellant. The adjudicating authority mis-interpreted the section and rules. I observed that the rule 5(1) has been introduced only w.e.f.18.04.2006. The period of dispute in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
