COMMR. OF C. EX., BELGAUM Vs. PRATIK AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this appeal is the demand of service tax in respect of certain amounts received as reimbursable expenses from the principals of the appellants. Learned DR referring to the Annexure to the show cause notice stated that the appellants had not discharged the service tax liability on the so called reimbursements and there is no evidence to show that they are actually reimbursements. He took me to the OIO and stated that the Commission itself consists of a fixed amount and variable amounts. According to the revenue, the fixed amount is not towards any reimbursable expenses like rent. In fact in respect of freight, the department had already allowed deduction and no service tax was charged. Further, the learned DR stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a finding that longer period cannot be invokable. The Department is highly aggrieved over the above findings.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned Commissioner (Appeals) stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has given a very clear finding that the reimbursable amounts are not to be included for calculating the service tax. The service tax is only on the Commission received for C&F agency services. In fact, the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the entire matter to the Original Authority only to examine the claim of the appellants in the light of the evidences to be produced. He also invited my attention to the appellants letter dated 29 -10 -1999, wherein they had made the entire position clear and department was also knowing the appellants stand that they were paying service tax only on the commission excluding the reimbursable amount.

(3.) ON a careful consideration of the issue I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in his finding has stated clearly legal position in the matter. He has also referred to the letter dated 29 -10 -1999 of the appellant addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise range. The facts were known to the department and the Commissioner (Appeals) is justified in giving a finding that longer period cannot be invoked. However as regards actual liability, he has only remanded the matter to the Original Authority. In these circumstances, I do not find that there is any strong ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, revenues appeal is dismissed.