2015 (11) TMI 471 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal upholds service tax liability on fees, sets aside penalties, emphasizes evidence

PMT Machines Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

PMT Machines Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - TMI Issues involved:Service tax liability on service recipient from abroad, challenge against penalties, service tax liability on legal fees and out of pocket expenses.Analysis:1. Service tax liability on service recipient from abroad: The appellant sought services from foreign service providers for raising external commercial borrowings. The Revenue alleged non-payment of service tax liability by the appellant. The lower authorities confirmed demands, interest, and penalties. The appellant accepted liability for certain fees under reverse charge mechanism but contested penalties and the tax liability on legal fees and out of pocket expenses.2. Challenge against penalties: The appellant argued that they had already discharged their service tax liability for certain fees and were contesting the imposition of penalties. The Counsel cited a judgment by the High Court of Delhi to support their claim that legal fees and out of pocket expenses were reimbursable actual expenses incurred by the service providers as per the agreement.3. Service tax liability on legal fees and out of pocket expenses: The Revenue contended that there was no evidence to prove that legal fees and out of pocket expenses were actual reimbursements. They argued that penalties were rightly imposed due to the violation of provisions. The Tribunal found that the appellant had received services from lead managers and paid fees as per the agreement. The tax liability on certain fees was upheld, but penalties were set aside based on the principle of revenue neutrality.4. Judgment and Remand: The Tribunal upheld the service tax liability on certain fees paid to lead managers but set aside penalties, considering the revenue neutrality aspect. However, regarding legal fees and out of pocket expenses, the Tribunal found a lack of documentary evidence to prove actual reimbursement. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further consideration based on any documentary evidence presented by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reassessment in light of the absence of conclusive evidence.5. Conclusion: The appeal challenging the service tax liability on specific fees was partly rejected, with penalties being set aside. The issue of tax liability on legal fees and out of pocket expenses was remanded for further review based on potential documentary evidence. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure a fair assessment of the disputed expenses and penalties, emphasizing the importance of substantiating claims with appropriate documentation.