9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand of service tax of Rs.95,06,861/- along with interest and penalty. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. ITC Ltd (herein after referred as the appellant), as owner of ITC Centre, Kolkata, and ITC Infotech Park, Bangalore, permitted certain entities to use portions of its said premises under leave and licence agreements. In terms of the said agreements, the licencees concerned were required to pay the monthly licence fee to the appellant for the use and enjoyment of the specified area in the property concerned. In addition to the licence fee, the licencees were to pay for the electricity consumed as well as charges on account of maintenance. 2.1. Electricity at ITC Centre, Kolkata was provided by CESC Ltd. which raised a single bill o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A SCN dated 20.04.2012 was issued to the appellant and demanding Service tax of Rs.95,06,861, on the recoveries made by the appellant from the licensees, on the allegation that the appellant had recovered such service tax amount of Rs.95,06,861/- from the licencees but had not deposited the same with the Government exchequer. After due process, the said notice was adjudicated and the demand of service tax made in the notice was confirmed along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved against the confirmation of the demands, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The appellant submits that the show cause notice was issued on the allegation that service tax of Rs.95,06,861 was recovered from the licencees but not deposited to Government excheq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut any mark up. Thus, they acted as 'pure agents' for collecting the charges and paying it to the concerned agencies. Accordingly, the appellant submits that the reimbursements received by them on account of electricity, telephone and maintenance charges are not includable in the assessable value. Thus, they prayed for setting aside the demands of service tax along with interest and penalty confirmed in the impugned order. 4. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 6. We find that the SCN was issued to the appellant demanding service tax on the allegation that the appellant has "recovered service tax from the clients but not deposited the same to Govt. exch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es on account of electricity, telephone and maintenance cannot be included in the value of renting of immovable property service. The appellant did not provide electricity or telephone or maintenance to the licensees. Accordingly, we observe that the payments received by them are the reimbursements and they were not expenditure or cost incurred by them in the course of providing renting of immovable property service. The amounts reimbursed by the licencees for electricity, telephone and maintenance were not 'consideration' for any service provided by the appellant in the course of providing renting of immovable property service . Further, we observe that the appellant got the reimbursements of the actual cost without any mark up. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
