Respondent Liable for Service Tax on Imported "Engineering Design & Drawings" Under "Design Services," SC Rules

The SC set aside the CESTAT's decision, ruling that the respondent must pay service tax on imported "Engineering Design & Drawings" under "Design Services." The Court determined that these designs could be taxed as both goods and services, applying the aspect theory. The case was remanded to the CESTAT to evaluate if the services provided by a foreign entity qualify as "Design Services" and to assess the validity of using the extended period of limitation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of "Engineering Design & Drawings" as goods or services.
2. Applicability of service tax on imported designs under the category of "Design Services".
3. Invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Summary:

1. Classification of "Engineering Design & Drawings" as goods or services:
The respondent, engaged in manufacturing Wind Turbine Generators (WTG), imported "Engineering Design & Drawings" from its sister companies and classified them as "goods" under the Customs Tariff, thereby claiming a 'Nil' rate of customs duty. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) initially held that these designs were "goods" and not "services," relying on the case of Sojitz Corporation v. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi, and observed that the same activity cannot be taxed as both goods and services.

2. Applicability of service tax on imported designs under the category of "Design Services":
The Supreme Court examined whether the "Engineering Design & Drawings" imported by the respondent for manufacturing WTGs were liable to service tax under "Design Services" as defined in Section 65(35b) read with Section 65(105)(zzzzd) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court noted that the definition of "Design Services" is broad, excluding only fashion design and interior decorating. The Court emphasized that the same activity can be taxed as both goods and services under different heads by applying the aspect theory, as established in BSNL v. Union of India. The Court concluded that the CESTAT's view that the same activity cannot be taxed as both goods and services was erroneous and that the designs fall under the taxable category of "Design Services."

3. Invocation of the extended period of limitation:
The respondent argued that the services rendered by a foreign entity might not fall within the purview of "Design Services" and contested the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the CESTAT to specifically address these two grounds, as they were not considered in the initial judgment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the CESTAT's judgment, holding that the respondent is liable to pay service tax on the imported "Engineering Design & Drawings" under "Design Services." The matter was remanded to the CESTAT to consider whether the services rendered by a foreign entity fall within the purview of "Design Services" and the justification for invoking the extended period of limitation.

---