Service tax upheld on lease rental income from earth station equipment under Section 78 with penalties confirmed

M/s Sahara Sanchaar Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida

M/s Sahara Sanchaar Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida - TMI Issues Involved:

1. Whether the leasing out of earth station and related equipment qualifies as taxable service under "Supply of Tangible Goods Services."
2. Whether the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 9,00,01,588/- is recoverable along with interest.
3. Whether the CENVAT credit of Rs. 2,27,05,076/- is disallowable and recoverable along with interest.
4. Whether penalties under Section 78 and Rule 15(3) of the CCR, 2004, are imposable.
5. Whether penalties under Section 77(1)(a) and Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, are imposable.

Summary:

1. Leasing Out Earth Station and Related Equipment to M/S SICCL:

The Tribunal examined the agreement between the appellant and M/s SICCL, noting that the appellant retained ownership and control over the leased assets. The agreement clauses indicated that the lessee did not have exclusive control or possession, fulfilling the definition of "Supply of Tangible Goods Services" under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's contention that they transferred the right to use was rejected based on the agreement's terms and the Supreme Court's criteria in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and other cases.

2. Demand of Service Tax:

The demand of Rs. 9,00,01,588/- for the period 2009-10 to 2013-14 was upheld. The Tribunal found that the appellant evaded service tax by not disclosing the income from leasing in their ST-3 returns and suppressing facts from the department. The extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) was invoked due to deliberate suppression of facts.

3. CENVAT Credit:

The Tribunal disallowed the CENVAT credit of Rs. 2,27,05,076/- availed on input services, finding no nexus with the output service provided. However, credit for Space Segment Charges, Training Service & Installation, Freight & Cartage, Vehicle Maintenance, Insurance Charges, and Internal Audit fee was allowed, except for Chartered Flight hiring charges amounting to Rs. 16,80,000/-.

4. Penalties under Section 78 and Rule 15(3):

Penalties under Section 78 were upheld due to the appellant's suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty under Section 78 is mandatory in cases of fraud, collusion, or suppression of facts. The penalty was limited to the amounts confirmed in the order.

5. Penalties under Section 77(1)(a) and Section 77(2):

The Tribunal found no merits in the appellant's submissions against the penalties imposed under Section 77(1)(a) and 77(2) and upheld the penalties.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed, confirming the demand for service tax and disallowing part of the CENVAT credit while upholding the penalties imposed.