9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reimbursable expenses Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that:- Section 67 was amended by Finance Act, 2015 to include the reimbursement of expenses for charging the service tax but the period involved in the present case is prior to the amendment and therefore during the relevant period, the appellant was not liable to pay service tax on reimbursement of expenses - The demand of service tax on reimbursement of expenses has been held to be ultra vires by the Delhi High Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - demand set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/28/2007-DB - Final Order No. 21462/2018 - Dated:- 25-9-2018 - Mr. S.S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with interest. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the same. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4.1. Learned consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the provisions of act and the law as decided by various courts. He further submitted that during the period in dispute, in terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, the amount charged for taxable service alone chargeable to service tax and not the reimbursement of expenses. He further submitted that Section 67 got amended only in Finance Act, 2015 to include the reimbursement of expenses and there was no provision to levy of service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6.1. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record, we find that appellants have been regularly charging and paying service tax on the Security Agency Service but they were not paying the service tax for investigation service and as per the appellant, they had a bona fide belief that they are not liable to pay service tax on investigation service. But as soon as the Department pointed out that the appellants are liable to pay service tax on Investigation Service, the appellant paid the service on investigation along with interest much before the issuance of the show-cause notice and therefore the case of the appellant is covered under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
