2024 (2) TMI 197 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax demands upheld on offshore drilling services under reverse charge mechanism despite jurisdictional challenges

Aban Offshore Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai

Aban Offshore Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of ADG DGCEI to issue Show Cause Notice (SCN).2. Contracts/Agreements and the Best Evidence Rule.3. Consulting Engineering Services Vs. Manpower Recruitment Service.4. Management Consultancy Services Vs. Intellectual Property Service.5. Banking and Financial Services.6. Technical Inspection.7. Legal Consultancy Service.8. Judgments.9. Limitation and Penalty.Summary:1. Jurisdiction of ADG DGCEI to issue Show Cause Notice:The appellant argued that the SCN issued by ADG, DGCEI, is untenable based on the Canon India judgment. The Tribunal found that the Canon India judgment is not applicable as it pertains to the Customs Act, 1962, and not the Service Tax law. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction of ADG, DGCEI, based on the Notification No. 3/2004-ST dated 11.3.2004, which appointed ADG (DGCEI) as a Central Excise Officer with all powers exercisable by Central Excise officers.2. Contracts/Agreements and the Best Evidence Rule:The Tribunal emphasized the importance of documentary evidence over oral ones as per Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972. The agreements entered into by the appellant with various service providers were considered the best evidence to understand the nature of services provided.3. Consulting Engineering Services Vs. Manpower Recruitment Service:The appellant contended that the services provided by IOMI should be classified under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service (MRSAS). The Tribunal found that the agreement repeatedly used the term 'consultant,' indicating the provision of consulting services rather than manpower supply. The Tribunal applied various tests (Control and Supervision Test, Organisation Integration Test, Mutual Obligation Test, Provision of Equipment Test) and concluded that the services were correctly classified under Consulting Engineering Services.4. Management Consultancy Services Vs. Intellectual Property Service:The appellant argued that the services provided by IOI should be classified under Intellectual Property Service (IPS). The Tribunal found that the services provided by IOI were predominantly consultancy services related to management and business operations. The Tribunal held that the services were correctly classified under Management Consultancy Services as the appellant failed to prove that the services were provided by the holder of intellectual property rights.5. Banking and Financial Services:The appellant contended that the services provided by Barclays UK were not taxable as the entire activity took place outside India and that reimbursable expenses should not form part of the value. The Tribunal found that the services were received by the appellant in India and were taxable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism as per Section 66A(1) of FA 1994. The Tribunal also held that reimbursable expenses could not form part of the assessable value based on the Supreme Court's decision in Intercontinental Consultants.6. Technical Inspection:The appellant argued that the technical inspection and certification services were rendered with respect to rigs situated in non-designated areas and therefore not liable for service tax. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate this claim and upheld the findings of the impugned order.7. Legal Consultancy Service:The appellant did not dispute the classification but argued that the entire activity took place outside India. The Tribunal found that the legal consultancy services were provided to the appellant in India and were taxable under Section 66A.8. Judgments:The Tribunal examined various judgments cited by the appellant and found them not applicable to the present case based on the specific facts and circumstances.9. Limitation and Penalty:The appellant argued that the SCN was barred by limitation and that there was no suppression or fraud. The Tribunal found that the extended period was correctly invoked as the appellant was not cooperative and delayed providing information. The Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties, stating that the appellant's actions indicated an intention to evade payment of duty.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, finding it reasonable, legal, and proper, and dismissed the appeals.