Service tax demands set aside for business auxiliary services to foreign entities and erection services below threshold limits

CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demands. For business auxiliary services provided to foreign entities with payment in convertible foreign exchange, no service tax was payable under Export of Services Rules 2005. For erection/commissioning services during 2008-12, turnover remained below threshold limits exempting service tax liability. For 2012-13, appellant had already paid required service tax exceeding actual liability after threshold exemption. Extended period demands were time-barred as no suppression was established, with appellant maintaining proper declarations and filing returns regularly.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of Service Tax on services provided to a foreign entity under the Export of Services Rules, 2005.
2. Liability to pay Service Tax on 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation' services based on turnover threshold.
3. Invocation of the extended period for demand due to alleged suppression of facts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Service Tax on Services Provided to a Foreign Entity:

The primary issue revolves around whether the services provided by the Appellant to a foreign entity, specifically M/s. Mitsubishi Boeki Ltd., Japan, are subject to Service Tax under the Export of Services Rules, 2005. The Appellant contends that the services rendered, which involved identifying customers in India for the foreign entity, were paid for in foreign currency. According to Rule 3(2) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005, and supported by Board Circular No.111/5/2009-ST, services provided to a foreign entity are exempt from Service Tax if the payment is received in convertible foreign exchange. The Tribunal found that the Appellant met these conditions, as the services were provided to a foreign entity and payment was received in foreign currency. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the confirmed demand of Rs.3,12,770/- for these services, acknowledging that no Service Tax was payable.

2. Liability to Pay Service Tax on 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation' Services:

The second issue concerns the Service Tax liability on 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation' services provided within India. The Appellant argued that their turnover for these services was below the threshold limit of Rs.10,00,000 for the periods 2008-09 to 2011-12, thus exempting them from Service Tax. The Tribunal agreed with this position, noting that the Appellant's turnover during these years was indeed below the threshold, and consequently, no Service Tax was payable for these periods. However, for the period 2012-13, the turnover exceeded the threshold, necessitating the payment of Service Tax on the amount exceeding Rs.10,00,000. The Appellant had already paid Rs.1,44,381/- along with interest, which was more than the required Service Tax for that year. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the confirmed demand of Rs.2,75,420/- on these grounds.

3. Invocation of the Extended Period for Demand Due to Alleged Suppression:

The final issue pertains to whether the extended period for demand could be invoked due to alleged suppression of facts by the Appellant. The Appellant maintained that they had declared their foreign exchange earnings in the Balance Sheet and filed regular ST-3 Returns, indicating transparency in their dealings. The Tribunal found no evidence of suppression by the Appellant, as the Department did not make a specific case of suppression. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the confirmed demand for the extended period on account of time bar, ruling that the invocation of the extended period was unjustified.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the Appeal, setting aside the confirmed demands based on the merits of the case and the absence of suppression by the Appellant. The Appellant is entitled to consequential relief as per law, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 19.11.2024.

---