9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lved in the present dispute is from 2006 2007 to 2009-2010. During the above period, the appellant has discharged the service tax liability on 20% of commission received by them from ICICI Bank. Their claim is that rest 80% is towards actual expenses incurred by them on behalf of ICICI Bank. Their claim is that 80% of the commission received will be deductible in terms of Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. However, the department was of the view that the appellant does not satisfy the conditions prescribed under Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax Rules to justify such exclusion as pure agent. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued and service tax was ordered to be paid vide the impugned order on the full value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, the same should not be given any credence. As regards the correspondence, learned DR submits that same started with effect from 17.12.2007 i.e. the date of first letter was written by them on 17.12.2007 and as such, the appellant should be made to deposit the service tax for the period prior to the said letter inasmuch as the period started from 2006 onwards. 6. The first issue for consideration before us is whether the appellant will be entitled to exclude 80% of the commission received from ICICI Bank while payment of service tax. 7. We have perused the relevant clauses of agreement between the appellant and the ICICI Bank. We find that the agreement nowhere mentions that the appellant was engaging personnel on behalf of ICICI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deducting 80% of the charges towards expenses. The Commissioner in the impugned order has not arrived at any finding that such remarks in the ST 3 returns were not there in returns actually filed with the Revenue. Further, from the fact that the appellant wrote several letters explaining their stand and asking for clarification reflects upon the bonafide of the appellant, that they entertained a belief that 80% of the commission can be excluded. 9. In view of the above, we are of the view that Department is not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation under section 73 for demand of Service Tax in the present case. The Show cause notice which has been issued on 15.4.2011 for demand of service tax for the period 2006-07 to 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
