2015 (2) TMI 349 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Grants Stay on Time-Barred Service Tax Demand, Considers Long-Standing Dispute

M/s. Interjewel Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V

The Tribunal classified services under 'Business Auxiliary Services' and 'Support Services of Business and Commerce' under the Finance Act, 1994. The ... Taxation of Services (provided from outside India and received in India) Rule, 2006 - Commission paid to overseas company- consideration was paid in foreign currency as commission, which is taxable w.e.f. 18.4.2006 on reverse charge basis in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, read with rule 3(i) of Taxation of Services (provided from outside India and received in India) Rule, 2006 - Bar of limitation - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- Whole demand relates to extended period. Further, the matter was in the knowledge of the Revenue since 8.9.2006 since the date of filing the writ petition. Thus there being a prima facie good case on limitation, it is fit and proper to allow stay of the balance demand of tax, interest and penalty till disposal of the appeal. - Stay granted. Issues:1. Service Tax liability on Business Auxiliary Services provided by M/s Bonas & Co. Ltd.2. Time-barred nature of the show-cause notice.3. Interpretational nature of the issue regarding Service Tax on services received from outside India.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in the diamond business, imported rough diamonds from DTC, a sight-holder of DTC, and paid commission to M/s Bonas & Co. Ltd. for services. A show-cause notice demanded Service Tax for Business Auxiliary Services received from M/s Bonas & Co. Ltd. The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred and the issue was interpretational due to pending litigations. The Tribunal classified the services under 'Business Auxiliary Services' and 'Support Services of Business and Commerce' under relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant challenged the demand, arguing for a stay on the balance demand of tax, interest, and penalty till appeal disposal.2. The appellant argued that the show-cause notice was time-barred as the issue was sub-judice since 2006, supported by a writ petition filed challenging the levy of Service Tax. Despite the pendency of the issue before the High Court, the demand was confirmed in 2011, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged the prima facie good case on limitation due to the long-standing knowledge of the Revenue regarding the dispute, allowing a stay on the remaining demand till appeal resolution.3. The appellant highlighted the interpretational nature of the issue concerning Service Tax on services received from outside India, citing previous litigations and the constitutional validity challenge. The Tribunal considered the history of the issue and the pending litigations, leading to the decision to grant a stay on the balance demand, including tax, interest, and penalty, until the appeal's final disposal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of addressing the extended period aspect and the appellant's compliance with pre-deposit requirements.This detailed analysis covers the Service Tax liability, time-barred nature of the notice, and the interpretational aspect of the issue, leading to the Tribunal's decision to grant a stay on the remaining demand pending appeal resolution.