Marketing support services to foreign corporation qualify as export despite domestic rendering, service tax at 10.12% rate upheld

The CESTAT New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant on all issues. The tribunal held that marketing support services provided to a foreign corporation constituted export of services since benefits accrued outside India, despite services being rendered domestically. Service tax was correctly paid at 10.12% rate prevailing when services were rendered, not the enhanced 12.24% rate applicable at payment time. The appellant was entitled to abatement benefits under notification 1/2006-ST for turnkey projects. The extended limitation period was wrongly invoked as the department failed to substantiate allegations of willful suppression of material facts. The demand was set aside and appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

a) Whether marketing support provided to Nokia Corporation Finland is export of serviceRs.
b) Whether Service Tax is payable at the rate prevailing at the time of rendering service or at the time of raising billsRs.
c) Whether benefit of notification No. 1/2006-ST accrues to the AppellantRs.
d) Whether the extended period is wrongly invoked while issuing Show Cause NoticeRs.

Issue-wise Analysis:

Issue (a): Export of Service
The tribunal examined whether the Business Auxiliary Services provided by the appellant to Nokia Corporation, Finland, qualify as export of services under Rule 3 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The rule stipulates that services provided in relation to business or commerce to a recipient located outside India are considered exports if the service is delivered and used outside India, and payment is received in convertible foreign exchange. The tribunal found that the services were indeed provided to Nokia Corporation, Finland, which is located outside India, and the services were used by Nokia Corporation for strategizing in the Indian market. The tribunal relied on a CBEC Circular clarifying that the location of the service recipient, not the place of performance, is crucial for determining export of service. Consequently, it was held that the services provided were indeed exports, and the demand by the department was set aside.

Issue (b): Rate of Service Tax
The tribunal addressed the issue of whether service tax should be paid at the rate prevailing at the time of rendering service or at the time of raising bills. The department argued that the service tax should be paid at the rate applicable at the time of payment, which was increased to 12.24% after the services were rendered but before payment. The tribunal, however, noted that the taxable event is the rendition of service, as held by the Supreme Court in previous cases. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the service tax should be paid at the rate of 10.12% prevailing when the service was rendered, and the department's demand for higher payment was incorrect.

Issue (c): Benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST
The tribunal examined whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST, which allows a 67% abatement for certain services when the gross amount includes the value of goods sold. The department alleged that the appellant did not include the value of goods in the gross value of services. The tribunal found that the appellant had entered into a turn-key project contract that included both supply of goods and provision of services, and the invoices reflected the inclusion of goods' value. The tribunal held that the abatement was wrongly denied, as the services were in the nature of a works contract, and thus the appellant was entitled to the benefit under the notification.

Issue (d): Extended Period of Limitation
The tribunal considered whether the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked in the Show Cause Notice. The department alleged suppression of facts by the appellant, which justified the extended period. However, the tribunal found that the department's demand was based on presumptions without substantial evidence of willful suppression. The tribunal cited a Supreme Court decision indicating that mere failure to declare does not constitute willful suppression unless there is a deliberate act to evade duty. Consequently, the tribunal held that the extended period was wrongly invoked, and the demand was set aside.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the demand for service tax and penalties, holding in favor of the appellant on all issues. The services provided were deemed exports, the correct rate of service tax was applied, the benefit of abatement was allowed, and the extended period of limitation was deemed improperly invoked. The appeal was allowed, and the order under challenge was set aside.

---