Service tax liability confirmed for works contract with foreign supplier under Reverse Charge Mechanism Section 66A including sub-contractor costs

CESTAT New Delhi upheld service tax liability on appellant under Works Contract Service for composite contract with foreign supplier involving equipment supply, supervision of erection, installation, and commissioning. Court held appellant liable under Reverse Charge Mechanism per Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994, including sub-contractor costs in taxable value under Rule 2A. Extended limitation period was validly invoked due to deliberate suppression of taxable value. Appeal dismissed with modification allowing set-off of previously paid service tax amounts against confirmed demand.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the activity rendered by the appellant can be called as Works Contract ServiceRs.
2. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the expenditure incurred for erection and commissioning of the plant by engaging various sub-contractors in terms of Rule 2A of Service Tax Valuation RulesRs.
3. Whether the show cause notice is barred by limitationRs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. 1: Works Contract Service

The primary issue is whether the appellant's activities qualify as Works Contract Service under Section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994. The definition includes contracts involving the transfer of property in goods and services such as erection, commissioning, or installation of plant and machinery. The Tribunal examined the contract between the appellant and TOSCOTEC, Italy, which involved the supply of equipment and supervision of erection, startup, and commissioning of a tissue paper plant. The contract was found to be composite, covering both supply and services without separate pricing for goods and services. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's activities, which included supervising erection and commissioning, fell under Works Contract Service. Consequently, under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism.

Issue No. 2: Liability Under Rule 2A of Service Tax Valuation Rules

Rule 2A of the Valuation Rules specifies that the value of the service portion in a works contract includes various costs, such as labor charges and payments to sub-contractors. The Tribunal noted that the contract between the appellant and TOSCOTEC was composite, with no distinction between the price of goods and services. Therefore, the charges paid to various sub-contractors were includable in the gross value of the works contract. The Tribunal upheld the service tax liability on the total contract value, including costs paid to contractors for erection and commissioning. However, the Tribunal ordered a modification in the computation of liability, acknowledging that the appellant had already paid a portion of the service tax, which should be set off against the confirmed demand.

Issue No. 3: Limitation

The appellant contested the demand on the grounds of limitation, arguing that the show cause notice was issued beyond the statutory period. However, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had failed to disclose the taxable value, thereby concealing it with intent to evade tax. The adjudicating authority noted that the appellant's liability came to light when they first made a payment to TOSCOTEC, and the appellant failed to discharge their liability during the appropriate period. The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, was rightly invoked due to the appellant's deliberate attempt at non-payment, and the show cause notice was not barred by time.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the order under challenge, confirming the service tax liability on the appellant's activities as Works Contract Service and including the costs paid to sub-contractors in the taxable value. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but allowed for the set-off of service tax already paid by the appellant against the confirmed demand. The plea of limitation was rejected, as the extended period was rightly invoked due to suppression of facts by the appellant.

---