AMIT SALES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard both sides on the Slav petition.

(2.) IT is admitted that the appellant is rendering the services of 'clearing and forwarding agent'. What is in dispute is the valuation of the services. The appellant is collecting the service charges under two heads, one Head known as 'Commission' and the other as "reimbursement of -expenses" said to be on actual basis. It is claimed that the re -imbursement relates to expenses towards godown rent, loading and unloading charges, the charge relating to cartage, stationery, printing, telephone, electricity etc. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellant is primarily involved in rendering services as a 'clearing and forwarding agent' and the break -up given looks very artificial. It is not clear as to what all activities are treated by the appellant as falling within the service of "clearing and forwarding agent" and what exactly the amount under the Head 'Commission' stands for. Learned Company Secretary relies on the decision in the case of Sri Sastha Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner and the following decisions which followed the decision in the case of Sri Sastha Agencies Pvt. Ltd.:

(3.) ON perusal of the above decisions, we do not find the reasoning for arriving at the decision to exclude the amounts collected as reimbursement of various expenses. The list of excluded category got enlarged in the later decisions following the decision given in Sri Sastha Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and has permitted not only charge reimbursed under specific head but under residuary heads by use of words such as "like" and "etc." To render any service, manpower, equipments and other facilities are required in varying proportions. No service can be rendered in a vacuum. The value for the services should be the gross amount charged and should. be determined strictly as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, read with the Rules