CESTAT Chennai: Ruling on Service Tax Liability for Arranger Fees on ECBs

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the liability of service tax on arranger fees for External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) and the imposition of penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' prompt payment of service tax upon realizing their liability, their bonafide belief regarding taxability, and the revenue-neutral aspect of the situation. Consequently, the penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 were set aside, while the payment of service tax and interest was upheld.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability of service tax on arranger fee paid for ECB loans.
2. Imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issue 1: Liability of service tax on arranger fee paid for ECB loans

The case involved an appeal against an order by the adjudicating authority regarding the liability of service tax on arranger fees paid for External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) by a company. The company availed ECB loans and paid fees to ICICI Bank Ltd., Bangalore and Singapore Branch for processing and arranging the loans. The appellant believed that the service tax liability on the arranger fee was payable by the bank. However, upon realizing their liability as the recipient of the service, the appellant paid the entire service tax amount, including education cess. The appellants argued that they were entitled to take the entire tax as Cenvat credit, leading to a situation of revenue neutrality. They cited relevant case laws to support their position. The Revenue contended that the appellants contravened the provisions of the Finance Act and Service Tax Rules, making them liable for penalties. The Tribunal found that the appellants promptly paid the service tax upon becoming aware of their liability, also remitting interest for delayed payment. Considering the bonafide belief of the appellants regarding taxability and the revenue-neutral situation, the Tribunal invoked Section 80 and set aside the penalties imposed, sustaining the payment of service tax and interest.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994

The Revenue argued that the appellants' actions contravened the Finance Act and Service Tax Rules, making them liable for penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78. It was highlighted that the appellants delayed the payment of service tax, which would have gone unnoticed without the investigation by officers, potentially resulting in revenue loss for the Government. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for service tax, appropriated the amount, and imposed penalties. However, the Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the facts, found that the appellants promptly paid the service tax upon realizing their liability. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had reasonable cause for the delayed payment due to a bonafide belief regarding the taxability of the service and the revenue-neutral situation. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside, and the appeal was partially allowed, sustaining the payment of service tax and interest while overturning the penalties.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai addressed the issues of service tax liability on arranger fees for ECB loans and the imposition of penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal considered the bonafide belief of the appellants, their prompt payment upon realizing the liability, and the revenue-neutral nature of the situation in setting aside the penalties while upholding the payment of service tax and interest.

---