2013 (7) TMI 96 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Classifies Appellant's Services as 'Supply of Tangible Goods'

GOL OFFSHORE LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI

GOL OFFSHORE LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI - 2016 (46) S.T.R. 472 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues involved:1. Classification of services provided by the appellant under service tax law.2. Time bar aspect in issuing the show-cause notice.3. Interpretation of contractual terms between the appellant and ONGC.Issue 1: Classification of services provided by the appellant under service tax lawThe appellant provided rigs on charter hire basis for drilling operations to ONGC and its subsidiary. The department classified the services under 'Supply of Tangible goods for use Services' taxable under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that the services fell under mining services under Section 65(105)(zzzy) and were not taxable due to the activities being conducted outside India. The Revenue contended that the services were hiring of vessels for ONGC, falling under 'supply of tangible goods for use' service. The Tribunal noted the agreement's compensation structure and previous court judgments, concluding that the services provided by the appellant were indeed under the category of 'supply of tangible goods for use' services.Issue 2: Time bar aspect in issuing the show-cause noticeThe appellant claimed that the show-cause notice was time-barred as the department was aware of their activities before issuing the notice. The Revenue argued that the notice was within the time limit as it was issued within one year of the date the department was informed about the activities. The Tribunal held that the date of knowledge was relevant in computing the time limit, finding the notice timely and dismissing the appellant's contention of time bar.Issue 3: Interpretation of contractual terms between the appellant and ONGCThe contractual terms between the appellant and ONGC involved charter hiring of drilling units with compensation fixed on a per-day basis, even when no drilling occurred. The Tribunal analyzed the agreement and previous court decisions, determining that the compensation structure indicated the services provided by the appellant were indeed under the category of 'supply of tangible goods for use' services.In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.5.00 crores within eight weeks, with the balance amount of dues adjudged against the appellant to be waived upon compliance. The recovery of the balance amount was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.