Court rules service tax only on service fee, not reimbursable expenses like PF & ESI. Rule 5 not aligned with Finance Act.

The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that service tax should only be charged on the consideration for the service provided, excluding reimbursable expenses like Provident Fund and ESI contributions. The Court found that Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, which included such expenses in the taxable value, was not in line with Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's appeal was allowed, setting aside the demand beyond the normal limitation period and penalties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Demand of service tax on Provident Fund (PF) and ESI contributions.
2. Application of Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.
3. Limitation period for issuing show cause notice.
4. Interpretation of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.
5. Applicability of Supreme Court and Kerala High Court judgments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Demand of Service Tax on Provident Fund (PF) and ESI Contributions:
The appellant challenged the demand of service tax on contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI for the labor provided to clients. The Tribunal confirmed the demand beyond the normal period of limitation. The appellant argued that these contributions, being reimbursable expenses, should not be included in the assessable value for service tax, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. The respondent countered that such contributions should be included in the gross amount for service tax calculation under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. Application of Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006:
The appellant contended that Rule 5, which includes reimbursable expenses in the taxable value, was struck down by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal initially assessed the service tax based on Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 5. The Order-in-Original stated that salaries paid to labor and PF & ESI contributions were not excludable from the taxable value, as per Rule 5.

3. Limitation Period for Issuing Show Cause Notice:
The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal one-year period. For such an extended period, the Department needed to prove suppression, fraud, or misstatement by the appellant. The Tribunal found no such intent to defraud, as the appellant maintained records and believed in good faith that service tax was not payable on reimbursable expenses. Thus, the demand beyond the normal period was barred by limitation, but the demand within the normal period was upheld.

4. Interpretation of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994:
The High Court examined whether the Tribunal was correct in including PF, ESI, and salaries in the taxable value contrary to Section 67 and the Supreme Court judgment. Section 67 defines the gross amount charged for taxable services, and the Supreme Court clarified that only the consideration for the service provided should be included, not reimbursable expenses. The High Court found that Rule 5 went beyond the mandate of Section 67, which only includes the gross amount charged for the service provided.

5. Applicability of Supreme Court and Kerala High Court Judgments:
The appellant argued that the Kerala High Court judgment in Security Agencies Association was not applicable, as it dealt with a period before the amendment of Section 67 on 01.05.2006. The High Court agreed, noting that the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. applied to the period after the amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that reimbursable expenses should not be included in the taxable value, reinforcing the appellant's position.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the appellant was liable to be charged service tax only on the consideration for the service provided, excluding reimbursable expenses. The judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court did not apply to the present case, as it pertained to a period before the amendment of Section 67. Consequently, the substantial question of law was answered in favor of the appellant, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the demand beyond the normal period of limitation and penalties.

---