Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (12) TMI 21

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ure incurred by him on behalf of his principle (consignor) and here he has only worked as a facilitator and a pure agent on behalf of his principle and therefore prima facie the appellant has a strong case to claim non-inclusion of such reimbursed amount from the taxable income. However, the other charges which he got reimbursed whether that is includable in his taxable value or not as per the provision of Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 can only be decided by examining whether such expenditure that has been incurred on behalf of principle consignor are essential expenditures for providing the service of Consignment and Forwarding agents service and thus includable in the taxable value or not, is to be decided by getting necessary inform .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3-2004, demanding a service tax of ₹ 1,47,710/- under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was issued and penal provision under Section 76, 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were also invoked. The matter was adjudicated by learned Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 30th October 2009 wherein the above amount of the service tax alongwith penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was confirmed and penalties have also been imposed. Against the order of the learned Assistant Commissioner, an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was filed which was decided by order-in-appeal No. 222 (DKV)/ST/ JPR-I/2010 dated 08/06/2010, wherein the confirmation order of the Original Adjudicating Authority has been upheld by the learned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 672 (Tri. Bang.). 3. We have also heard learned Departmental Representative who has reiterated the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in his submissions. 4. We have heard both the sides. The Department was of view that the expenses which the appellant has got reimbursement from the service recipient were in the nature of freight, cartage, CFA, LOC, packing material, refreshment charges, drug licence charges, electric bills and telephone charges. They are primarily his own expenses for providing service which have been reimbursed by the service recipient. It has, therefore, been alleged that taxable value of service of C F agent have been suppressed to that extent. 5. Now before coming to the main issue on hand for adjudicatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, - (a) [ consideration includes - (i) any amount that is payable for the taxable services provided or to be provided; (ii) any reimbursable expenditure or cost incurred by the service provider and charged, in the course of providing or agreeing to provide a taxable service, except in such circumstances, and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed; (iii) any amount retained by the lottery distributor or selling agent from gross sale amount of lottery ticket in addition to the fee or commission, if any, or, as the case may be, the discount received, that is to say, the difference in the face value of lottery ticket and the price .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ice. Since, the appellant have been working as C F agent and have been incurring various expenditures, the nature of such expenditure whether same is necessary for providing the taxable service or not need to be seen by the Assessing Officer. Now on perusal of the type of expenditures which have been reimbursed to the appellant in certain items like drug licence charges, telephone charges incurred on behalf of the service recipient it appears that the appellant have got reimbursement of actual expenditure incurred by him on behalf of his principle (consignor) and here he has only worked as a facilitator and a pure agent on behalf of his principle and therefore we feel that prima facie the appellant has a strong case to claim non-inclusion o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates