M/S. Tetra Pak India Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/VM/236/09/dated 05.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Pune-III )

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

============================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

=============================================================

M/s. Tetra Pak India Private Limited.

:

Appellant

VS

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III :

Respondent

Appearance

Shri Aparna Hirandagi, Advocate for Appellant

Shri A.B. Kulgod , (A.R) for respondent

CORAM:

Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Date of hearing : 12/05/2015 Date of decision : 12/05/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : M.V. Ravindran

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.P-III/VM/236/09/dated 05.11.2009.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the service tax liability on an mounts which were reimbursed as Traveling expenses, Lodging and Boarding expenses incurred by the appellants employees while undertaking official tour. Both the lower authorities have confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs.1,41,581/- with interest and also imposed penalties holding that the said tax liability arises even if the same is for reimbursement of the expenses. The period involved in this case is from April 2006 to September 2006.

4. Both the lower authorities are in error in holding that the reimbursable amounts on which service tax liability has been confirmed is a consideration for the services rendered. On perusal of the order, we find that there is no dispute as to the fact that the amounts on which service tax liability is confirmed are reimbursable expenses incurred for traveling, lodging and boarding and hotel charges. Both the lower authorities have invoked the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rule, 2006. We find that the very same provision has been struck down by the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Inercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2013 (29) STR 9 (Del.). Since, the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rule, 2006 has been struck down, we find no merits in the arguments raised by the Ld. AR, accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any.

(Pronounced & Dictated in court)

(P.S.Pruthi) Member (Technical)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

Sm

??

??

??

??

3