PSU wins appeal on service tax for penalties/liquidated damages

The appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant, a PSU under the Ministry of Defence, regarding the demand of service tax on penalties/liquidated damages recovered from suppliers for contract breaches. The Tribunal ruled that such penalties are not subject to service tax under section 66E (e) of the Finance Act, as they do not involve refraining from an act or tolerating a situation, based on contract terms and legal precedents. The impugned order demanding service tax was set aside, granting the Appellant consequential benefits as per the law.

---

---

Issues:
Whether the demand of service tax on liquidated damages/penalties recovered by the Appellant from its contractors under section 66E (e) of the Finance Act, 1994 was rightly confirmed.

Analysis:
The Appellant, a PSU under the Ministry of Defence, recovered penalties/liquidated damages from suppliers for delays as per contract terms. Revenue alleged these amounts fall under declared services, invoking service tax. Appellant argued these penalties are not for tolerating an act but for breach of contract, not attracting service tax. The show cause notice for service tax was contested, citing proper bookkeeping and no wilful suppression. The Order-in-Original confirmed a demand of Rs. 11,78,75,893/-, including penalties and notice pay recovery, with interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act.

In the appeal, the Appellant relied on a Tribunal ruling (Steel Authority of India Ltd vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise) where it was held that penalties/liquidated damages are not subject to service tax under section 66E (e) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal observed that such amounts are not consideration for tolerating an act and do not involve refraining from an act or tolerating a situation, as per the contract terms. The ruling referenced a Supreme Court case (Tara Chand vs Balkishan AIR 1963 SC 1405) to support this interpretation.

The revenue, opposing the appeal, relied on the impugned order. However, the Tribunal found the issue to be covered in favor of the Appellant by the precedent order in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting the Appellant consequential benefits as per the law.

---