CCE, Salem, M/s. Diafina Enterprises, M/s. C. Kalavathy and M/s. Sangamitra Service Agency Versus M/s. Mukesh & Associates, CCE, Salem and Commissioner of GST & CE, Chennai South
Service Tax
2018 (6) TMI 381 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 15-3-2018
ST/41149/2014-DB, ST/41202/2013-DB, ST/42002/2015-DB, ST/248/2010-DB – Final Order No. 40801-40804/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Appellant
Shri Akhil Suresh, Advocate for the 1st Respondent
Smt. L. Maithili, Advocate for the 2nd to 4th Respondents
ORDER
The issue arising in all these appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order.
2. The ld. Advocates appearing for the appellants submitted that demand of service tax has been raised on the reimbursable expenses which cannot be included in the total taxable value of services for levy of servi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
upra. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
“29) In the present case, the aforesaid view gets strengthened from the manner in which the Legislature itself acted. Realising that Section 67, dealing with valuation of taxable services, does not include reimbursable expenses for providing such service, the Legislature amended by Finance Act , 2015 with effect from May 14,2015, whereby Clause (a) which deals with consideration is suitably amended to include reimbursable expenditure or cost incurred by the service provider and charged, in the course of providing or agreeing to provide a taxable service. Thus, only with effect from May 14,2015, by virtue of provisions of Section 67 itself, such reimbursable expenditure or cost would also form part of valuation of taxable services for charging service tax. Though, it was not argued by the learned counsel for the Department that Section 67 is a declaratory provision, nor could it be argued so, as we find that this is a substanti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
and features as also in the implication as to its meaning that arise by presumptions as to the intent of the maker thereof.
28. Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow's backward adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bedrock that every human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset. This principle of law is known as lex prospicit non respicit: law looks forward not backward. As was observed in Phillips v. Eyre [(1870) LR principle that legislation by
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =