9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal Nos.: ST/00748 & 00775/2010 - Final Order No. 42178-42179/2018 - Dated:- 26-7-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri. K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Appellant Shri. V. S. Manoj, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench, Both these appeals emanate from the same impugned order and hence, were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as Department and assessee . 1.1 Brief facts are that the assessee are engaged in providing Custom House Agent Services, Port Services, Technical Inspection and Certification Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to demand the service tax along with interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the Original Authority confirmed the demand in respect of the three issues and imposed penalties. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand for the extended period i.e., for the period prior to 18.04.2006 and also set aside the demand on Business Auxiliary Services in respect of incentives received from shipping liners. Aggrieved by the confirmation of service tax in respect of the normal period as well as the denial of CENVAT Credit on input services, the assessee has filed Appeal No. ST/775/2010. The Department has filed Appeal No. ST/748/2010 against the order of Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) has rightly set aside the demand for the extended period as there was no evidence to show that the assessee has suppressed facts with the intention to evade payment of service tax. However, for the normal period, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand. He argued that the same has been upheld alleging that the assessee has collected margin/profit over and above the actual reimbursable expenses. The assessee would be able to establish that they have not collected margin/profit over and above the actual reimbursable amount and the matter be remanded for giving the assessee an opportunity to establish their case on this count. 2.4 With regard to the denial of credit on input services also the Ld. Counsel submitted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterference. The Department is aggrieved that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand for the extended period. In para 11 of the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has given in detail that the assessee have disclosed the entire details with regard to the amount collected, reimbursable expenses, incentives in their own accounts as well as their financial statements. 5.2 It is also stated that they have disclosed the details of credit availed in their own ST-3 returns. We find that this conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals), that the demand for the extended period cannot sustain as there is no material evidence to conclude that the appellants have suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of duty, is factually ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
