Service tax calculated on actual contract value paid, not proposed amounts or free goods

M/s Renardet SA Narsinghpur Project Versus Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh

M/s Renardet SA Narsinghpur Project Versus Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh - TMI Issues Involved:

1. Short payment of service tax on gross amount charged.
2. Short payment of service tax due to non-inclusion of TDS.
3. Denial of Cenvat credit due to lack of documents.
4. Liability to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism for legal consultancy and rent-a-cab services.
5. Invocation of extended period of limitation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

First Issue: Short payment of service tax on gross amount charged

The appellant argued that service tax was correctly paid on the amount approved by NHAI, as per the agreement. The department contended that service tax should be paid on the gross amount mentioned in the invoice, including grossing up, withheld amounts, and remunerations. The Tribunal examined Section 67 of the Finance Act and relevant case law, concluding that the amount approved and paid by NHAI constitutes the "consideration" for the service. Therefore, the service tax should be based on this approved amount, not the invoice amount. The Tribunal held that the department's demand for service tax on the invoice amount was incorrect and set it aside.

Second Issue: Short payment of service tax due to non-inclusion of TDS

The appellant claimed that TDS should not be included in the taxable value when it was refunded to NHAI due to project losses in certain years. The department argued that TDS should be part of the gross value as per Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Tribunal referred to the agreement between the appellant and NHAI, which specified that the consideration was exclusive of taxes. It also noted that TDS was refunded to NHAI in loss years, so it was not retained by the appellant. The Tribunal held that TDS should not be included in the taxable value when refunded and set aside the department's demand.

Third Issue: Denial of Cenvat credit due to lack of documents

The appellant argued that Cenvat credit was denied based on procedural lapses, not on substantive grounds, and that the invoices and ledgers were provided to the department. The department contended that credit was availed without proper documents and that the appellant failed to maintain records as required by Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal found that the appellant had provided the necessary documents and that the denial of credit based on procedural lapses was unjustified. It held that the appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit and set aside the department's denial.

Fourth Issue: Liability to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism for legal consultancy and rent-a-cab services

The appellant did not contest the liability for these services but argued that the demand was for the extended period of limitation. The department confirmed the liability based on Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had already paid service tax on the abated value for rent-a-cab services and that the excess amount paid should be appropriated. It held that the demand for these services was justified but limited to the appropriated amount.

Fifth Issue: Invocation of extended period of limitation

The appellant argued that there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade tax, and that the demand was based on an interpretational issue. The department contended that the appellant failed to disclose income in statutory returns, amounting to suppression of facts. The Tribunal found that the appellant had correctly assessed and paid service tax based on the amounts approved and paid by NHAI. It held that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked as there was no evidence of willful suppression or intent to evade tax. The entire demand for the extended period was set aside.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the order under challenge in both appeals, except for the findings on the fourth issue regarding the liability for legal consultancy and rent-a-cab services under the reverse charge mechanism. The appeals were allowed, and the demands were set aside as barred by limitation or incorrect based on the substantive issues discussed.