2005 (5) TMI 4 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal Rules Service Receiver Not Liable for Service Tax

CCE, Cochin Versus Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd.

CCE, Cochin Versus Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. - 2006 (1) S.T.R. 219 (Tri – Bang) Issues Involved:1. Liability for non-payment of Service Tax by non-resident service providers.2. Determination of liability for Service Tax between service provider and service receiver.3. Interpretation of contract/agreement for tax liability.4. Applicability of Tribunal rulings on similar cases.Analysis:Issue 1: Liability for non-payment of Service Tax by non-resident service providersThe judgment deals with the issue of whether a respondent can be held liable for the non-payment of Service Tax by non-resident service providers. The Appellate Tribunal held that in cases where the service provider is a foreign company without an office in India, the liability for Service Tax should be fixed on the service provider and not on the service receiver. The Tribunal overruled the lower authority's finding that the respondent acted as an agent of the foreign firms, emphasizing that the terms of the contract did not indicate that the respondent was employed by the foreign company to pay taxes on their behalf. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was not the agent of the foreign company, and therefore, the demands of Service Tax could not be confirmed on the respondent.Issue 2: Determination of liability for Service Tax between service provider and service receiverThe Department raised demands against the respondent for the value of services received from foreign firms, arguing that the respondent should pay the Service Tax on behalf of the foreign firms providing the services. However, the Tribunal observed that the respondent had only received services from the foreign companies as Consulting Engineers and was not their agent. Relying on Tribunal rulings in similar cases, the Tribunal held that the Service Tax could not be demanded from the respondent, as they were not acting as agents of the foreign firms.Issue 3: Interpretation of contract/agreement for tax liabilityThe Tribunal examined the contract/agreement between the respondent and the foreign firms providing technical advice and consultancy services. It was noted that the contract did not indicate that the respondent had been employed by the foreign company to pay taxes on their behalf. The terms of the contract emphasized that the foreign company should be paid the full contracted amount, and any liability arising from taxes would be borne by the respondent. Based on this analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent was not liable for the Service Tax under the terms of the contract.Issue 4: Applicability of Tribunal rulings on similar casesThe Tribunal considered previous rulings, such as Navinon Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-VI and Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, where it was held that Service Tax could not be fastened on the recipient of services received from foreign companies. In line with these precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the respondent, in this case, could not be held liable for the Service Tax as they were only receiving services from the foreign companies and were not acting as their agents.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing that the respondent was not the agent of the foreign company and, therefore, could not be held liable for the Service Tax on the services received. The judgment relied on the interpretation of the contract/agreement and the application of relevant Tribunal rulings to determine the tax liability in this case.