Foreign remittances for design services under reverse charge mechanism not subject to service tax demand

CESTAT Allahabad set aside service tax demand on appellant's foreign remittances for design services under reverse charge mechanism. The tribunal held the show cause notice was vague and invalid as it simultaneously classified services under two categories - Design Services and Commercial Industrial Construction Services. The revenue failed to establish that design services were independent and separable from the integrated contract. The tribunal found design charges were part of indivisible contractual arrangement and not standalone taxable services, ruling the artificial segregation impermissible. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice (SCN).
2. Classification of services under the taxable category.
3. Demand of service tax under reverse charge.
4. Indivisibility of the contract.
5. Limitation period for raising demand.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice (SCN):
The Appellant argued that the SCN was vague, non-specific, and invalid as it simultaneously alleged the disputed services under two taxable categories: Design Services and Commercial and Industrial Construction Services. The Tribunal found substantial force in this argument, noting that the SCN was per se bad in law and invalid as it failed to establish the classification of the said services under any specified taxable category. The SCN's contradictory conclusions rendered it void ab initio, making the impugned order without the authority of law.

2. Classification of Services under the Taxable Category:
The Appellant contended that the services provided by M/s. Corus could not be classified under Design Services as defined in Section 65 (36b) read with Section 65 (105) (zzzzd) of the Act. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the definition of Design Services was exhaustive and did not cover the structural components like Kalzip Aluminium Roofing Sheets. The Tribunal found that the services under dispute were outside the scope of Design Services, rendering the demand of service tax under this category unjustified and unsustainable in law.

3. Demand of Service Tax under Reverse Charge:
The SCN raised the demand of service tax under reverse charge on the design charges paid by the Appellant to the foreign entities, in terms of Section 66A of the Act. The Tribunal found that the attempt to artificially vivisect the supply of Design and Drawings from the indivisible contract could not be sustained, and the demand of service tax raised and confirmed on this basis could not be upheld.

4. Indivisibility of the Contract:
The Appellant argued that the contract with M/s. Corus was an indivisible contract involving the supply of goods and services, and the provision of design, detailing, drawings, submittals, etc., was an integral and inseparable part of the contract. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the contract did not involve nor envisage the provision of Design and Drawing services independently. The separate consideration paid by the Appellant was not for any independent supply of Design or Drawings services but for a gamut of services integral to the contract.

5. Limitation Period for Raising Demand:
The Appellant contended that the demand was barred by limitation as the SCN was issued beyond the normal period. The Tribunal found that the Appellant had recorded all transactions in its books of accounts, and there was no attempt to hide or camouflage any transaction. The demand was based on information already available to the Department through an audit conducted in 2010. The Tribunal held that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was illegal and unjustified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the SCN was vague and invalid, the services could not be classified under Design Services, the demand of service tax under reverse charge was unsustainable, the contract was indivisible, and the demand was barred by limitation. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.

---