Satellite transponder hire treated as taxable service; extended limitation failed for lack of suppression or intent to evade tax.

Lease or hire of a satellite transponder was examined under the concept of deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d), but the arrangement with a foreign entity was treated on the facts as business support service rather than a transfer of right to use goods within India. The service tax demand was also found time-barred because the Department could not establish suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade tax, and it had prior knowledge of the transactions. As a result, the extended limitation period could not be invoked, and the consequential tax demand and penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether lease or hire of transponders attached to a satellite amounted to a deemed sale of goods rather than a taxable service; (ii) Whether the service tax demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether lease or hire of transponders attached to a satellite amounted to a deemed sale of goods rather than a taxable service

Analysis: The transponder was treated as an electronic segment of the satellite and, in principle, capable of answering the description of goods. The discussion proceeded on the constitutional concept of deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d) and the law governing sale of goods. However, the arrangement in question was with a foreign entity outside India, and that factual setting distinguished it from cases where transfer of right to use goods within India was treated as a deemed sale. On that basis, the hiring transaction was accepted as an activity classifiable as business support service received by the appellant.

Conclusion: The transaction was not accepted as a deemed sale on the facts, and it was held to fall within the taxable service category of business support service.

Issue (ii): Whether the service tax demand was barred by limitation

Analysis: The demand related to periods from 2006-07 to 2009-10, but the notice was found to have been received only in April 2011. The record did not support invocation of suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade tax, and the Department had prior knowledge of the transactions. In those circumstances, the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred.

Final Conclusion: Although the transaction was treated as taxable on merits, the demand could not be sustained because the invocation of the extended limitation period failed, and the consequential tax demand and penalties were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand of service tax cannot be sustained by invoking the extended limitation period in the absence of suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade tax, especially where the Department had prior knowledge of the transaction.

---