9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferential duty arose. It is also evident that appellant has not disclosed the facts of their re-negotiation with their client and that they are getting over and above the amount initially agreed upon. Therefore, there was clear suppression of fact with intent to evade duty. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/323/2009, ST/742/2009 - A/31408-31409/2018 - Dated:- 29-10-2018 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Ms. Swetha Shri G. Prahlad, Advocates for the Appellant. Shri B. Guna Ranjan, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P.V. Subba Rao. 1. These appeals are filed against Orders-in-Original Nos. 12/2008-ST dated 31.12.2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. (ii) They have no malafide intention to evade service tax liability and therefore extended period of demand cannot be invoked and no penalty and interest can be imposed on them. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants Technocrats Pvt Ltd [2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC)] and argued that it is settled position of law that reimbursements are not subject to service tax. 4. Learned departmental representative reiterates the Order-in-Original and submits that as per the original agreement, the appellant is supposed to pay service tax out of the amount paid by SCCL and therefore the amount paid by them was taken as cum-duty amount. Accordingly, service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received by them cannot be equated with the reimbursable expenses incurred while rendering service which were not found exigible in the case of Intercontinental Consultants Technocrats Pvt Ltd (supra) by the Hon ble Apex Court. It is also evident that appellant has not disclosed the facts of their re-negotiation with their client and that they are getting over and above the amount initially agreed upon. Therefore, there was clear suppression of fact with intent to evade duty. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 6. Appeals are rejected and impugned orders are upheld. (Operative part of this order was pronounced in the Open Court on conclusion of hearing) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
