Tribunal rules in favor of Appellant on service tax, invalidating Rule 5(1) and addressing taxable expenses.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, holding that reimbursable expenses like horticulture, housekeeping, cleaning, etc., were not subject to Service Tax as they were not part of the consideration for services provided. The Tribunal also found that services related to the management and maintenance of immovable property were taxable only post-amendment, absolving the Appellant of tax liability before the change. Additionally, the Tribunal deemed Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax Rules invalid in extending taxable value to include reimbursable expenses. The issue of Cenvat Credit reversal exceeding 20% was sent back for further review, and the extended period of limitation was not addressed in the judgment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of reimbursement expenses under "Real Estate Agent Services."
2. Taxability of services provided before and after the amendment to the definition of "Management Maintenance or Repair Services."
3. Applicability of Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.
4. Cenvat Credit reversal exceeding 20% of the tax payable.
5. Invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Reimbursement Expenses:
The Appellant contended that the expenses incurred on services such as horticulture, housekeeping, cleaning, rent-a-cab, supply of manpower, maintenance of immovable property, security, and pest control were reimbursements and not liable to be classified under "Real Estate Agent Services" or "Real Estate Consultant Services." The Tribunal agreed, noting that the Supreme Court in Union of India and ANR Vs. M/s Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd held that reimbursable expenditures cannot form part of the valuation of taxable services. Consequently, no Service Tax could be levied on these expenses as they were not part of the consideration for the provision of services.

2. Taxability of Services Pre and Post Amendment:
The Appellant argued that "management and maintenance of immovable property" became taxable only from 16 June 2005, following an amendment. The Tribunal accepted this argument, stating that the introduction of a new entry for these services implied that they were not covered under the existing "Real Estate Agent Services" before the amendment. Therefore, the Appellant could not be subjected to Service Tax for these services prior to 16 June 2005.

3. Applicability of Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision, which declared Rule 5(1) ultra vires of Section 67 of the Act. The rule could not extend the scope of taxable value to include reimbursable expenses. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the expenses for horticulture, housekeeping, cleaning, supply of manpower, and pest control could not be taxed under Rule 5(1).

4. Cenvat Credit Reversal Exceeding 20%:
The Appellant contended that it maintained separate books of accounts and did not utilize Cenvat Credit in excess of 20% of the Service Tax payable. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not adequately consider these contentions. The Tribunal noted that the proportion of exempted services to taxable services was only 1.17%, and the Cenvat Credit pertaining to exempted services amounted to Rs. 8,13,156, which was already paid. The Tribunal remitted this issue back to the Commissioner for reconsideration.

5. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The Appellant argued that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act could not be invoked. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment, focusing instead on the substantive issues of classification, taxability, and Cenvat Credit.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the confirmation of demand under "Real Estate Agent Services" for the first show cause notice. The issue of Cenvat Credit reversal was remitted to the Commissioner for a fresh order. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, with specific directions for reconsideration on certain aspects.

---