2018 (9) TMI 1666 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Valuation – inclusion of reimbursable expenses in assessable value – Held that:- The issue is decided in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. VERSUS M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS AND TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD. [2018 (3) TMI 357 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that 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 – demand do not sustain.
–
CENVAT Credit – input service used for non-taxable output service – Held that:- In the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE-V VERSUS M/S. VISHAL PRECISION STEEL TUBES AND STRIPS PVT. L
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
a, were engaged in cargo handling service. Pursuant to audit, it appeared to the department that appellants (i) were required to pay service tax on reimbursable expenses incurred during the period 19.4.2006 to 31.7.2007 amounting to ₹ 3,68,758/- and (ii) wrongly availed CENVAT credit of service tax on input service used for non-taxable output service during the period June 2006 to March 2007 amounting to ₹ 15,34,141/-. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 23.10.2007 was issued proposing demand of the aforesaid amounts along with interest and also for imposing penalties under various provisions of law. In adjudication, the original authority confirmed the proposal. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 26.3.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
put service, he relies on the following case laws:- a. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – 2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC) b. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Narayan Polyplast – 2005 (179) ELT 20 (SC) c. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Vishal Precision Steel Tubes & Strips Pvt. Ltd. – 2017 (349) ELT 686 (Kar.) The ld. counsel submits that, in all these judgments, it has been reiterated that credit has been utilized for payment of duty which is not required to be paid; such credit is not required to be reversed. 3. On the other hand, ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. We find that the ld. counsel is correct in his assertio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =