9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s quid pro qua for rendering such a service. The reimbursement made by the principal to the C&F Agent on account of various expenses do not form part of amount chargeable to Service Tax - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/5/2009-DB - Final Order No. 20970 / 2018 - Dated:- 18-7-2018 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mrs. Kavita Podwal, AR For the Appellant Mr. Partha Sarathy, Advocate Sarathy Associates For the Respondent ORDER Per : P. Anjani Kumar M/s. Askar Timbers (the Respondent) have issued a SCN for the alleged evasion of Service Tax during 01.01.2000 to 30.06.2004 on the amount reimbursed to them for the services rendered to M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended that Larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of L T Chennai- 2006 (3) STR 321 (Tri. LB) has observed that normally there is a contract between the principal and the clearing and forwarding agent detailing the terms and conditions and also indicating the commission or remuneration to which C F Agent is entitled. A Clearing and Forwarding Agent normally undertake the following operations: (i) Receiving the goods from the factories or premises of the principal or his agents; (ii) Warehousing these goods; (iii) Receiving dispatch orders from the principal; (iv) Arranging dispatch of goods as per the directions of the principal by engaging transport on his own or through the authorized transporters of the principal; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed not for providing such taxable service cannot a part of that valuation as that amount is not calculated for providing such taxable service . That according to us is the plain meaning which is to be attached to Section 67 (unamended, i.e., prior to May 1, 2006) or after its amendment, w.e.f. May 1, 2006. Once this interpretation is to be given to Section 67, it hardly needs to be emphasized that Rule 5 of the Rules went much beyond the mandate of Section 67. We, therefore, find that High Court was right in interpreting Sections 66 and 67 to say that in the valuation of taxable service, the value of tax service shall be the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service and the valuation of tax service cannot be anything ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
