2025 (6) TMI 191 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax demand under Reverse Charge Mechanism set aside on revenue neutrality principle and individual capacity distinction

CESTAT NEW DELHI set aside service tax demand under Reverse Charge Mechanism on commission paid to foreign agents and rent paid to company Director. The ... Levy of service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism - commission paid to the foreign agents and the rent paid to the Director of the company - entire exercise is revenue neutral in view of availability of Cenvat credit - Rent paid on godowns to the Director of the Company - invocation of extended period of limitation. Levy of service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism - commission paid to the foreign agents and the rent paid to the Director of the company - entire exercise is revenue neutral in view of availability of Cenvat credit - HELD THAT:- The issues raised are no more res integra and has been decided by this Tribunal and also by the Apex Court. Reliance placed by the learned counsel on the decision in Texyard International Vs. CCE [2015 (8) TMI 794 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where the issue related to the demand of service tax under reverse charge on the commission paid to the Overseas agents for export of finished goods. The Tribunal took the view that the service tax, if any, payable under reverse charge is permissible to be availed as Cenvat credit and that may be refundable under Notification No.41/2007. Further, relying on the decision in CCE Vs. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (4) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT], where the Apex Court accepted the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that the consequences of payment of excise duty after availing Modvat credit was revenue neutral, the demand of service tax under reverse charge was set aside on the principle of revenue neutrality. In view of the consistent stand taken by the Tribunal, it is found that the demand of service tax on the amount of commission paid to the foreign agents for booking of export orders is not maintainable on the principle of revenue neutrality as in the event of charging service tax, the appellant would be entitled to Cenvat credit. Therefore, the demand on this account is not maintainable. Rent paid on godowns to the Director of the Company - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in the case of Cords Cable Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2023 (4) TMI 441 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] have decided the said issue in favour of the appellants observing that the Directors provided the service of renting of immovable property in their individual capacity as owners of the premises and not as the Directors of the appellant. Hence in such a situation, it was held that the appellant could not have asked to pay service tax on reverse charge mechanism - no service tax is leviable on the rental amount paid to the Director of the Company, as the same was paid to him in his individual capacity as the owner of the godown. The demand on this account is accordingly set aside. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Since the issue decided on merits in favour of the appellant with regard to the demand of service tax on both the counts, it is not necessary to go into the issue of limitation for invoking the extended period, although this Tribunal has held that in case of revenue neutrality, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. There are no merits in the impugned order and hence, the same is hereby set aside - appeal allowed. The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in the present appeal are:1. Whether the commission paid to foreign agents for booking export orders is liable to service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), particularly when the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit and the principle of revenue neutrality applies.2. Whether the rent paid by the appellant to a Director of the company for godowns is liable to service tax under RCM, especially considering the capacity in which the Director provided the premises.3. Whether the extended period of limitation for demanding service tax can be invoked in the facts of the case, given the contention of revenue neutrality and bona fide belief of non-payment.Issue 1: Liability to Service Tax on Commission Paid to Foreign Agents under Reverse Charge Mechanism and the Principle of Revenue NeutralityRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Finance Act, 1994, particularly Sections 65(19) (business auxiliary services) and 65(44) (post 01.07.2012 services), along with Section 68(2) governing RCM, form the statutory basis. The Taxation of Services (Provided in India) Rules, 2006 and Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, clarify the place of provision and applicability of service tax on imported services. Notification No. 41/2007-ST provides for refund of service tax paid on export-related services. The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Central Excise Rules, 2002, regulate credit and refund mechanisms. The Apex Court decision in CCE vs. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. (2007) established the principle of revenue neutrality where payment of duty after availing credit does not result in additional burden.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appellant had remitted commission to foreign agents for export orders, which prima facie attracts service tax under RCM. However, the appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat credit on such service tax and claim refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in Texyard International, where it was held that service tax payable under RCM on commission to overseas agents is refundable, rendering the demand revenue neutral. The Apex Court's ruling in Coca Cola India was also applied to emphasize that the tax demand cannot be sustained when the net effect on revenue is neutral.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's records showed payment of commission to foreign agents and availing of Cenvat credit. The Revenue's demand was based on audit findings and invocation of extended limitation. The appellant's entitlement to refund under the relevant notifications and rules was uncontested.Application of Law to Facts: Since the appellant could claim refund of service tax paid on commission, the Tribunal concluded that the demand was not sustainable. The principle of revenue neutrality applied, negating the Revenue's claim for service tax on commission paid to foreign agents.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the service tax was payable under RCM as the services were imported and taxable. The appellant countered by asserting entitlement to Cenvat credit and refund, and reliance on established precedents. The Tribunal favored the appellant's interpretation, emphasizing the settled law on revenue neutrality and refund mechanisms.Conclusion: The demand of service tax on commission paid to foreign agents under RCM was held unsustainable on the principle of revenue neutrality and entitlement to refund, and was accordingly set aside.Issue 2: Liability to Service Tax on Rent Paid to Director of the Company under Reverse Charge MechanismRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Finance Act, 1994 and Notifications No. 30/2012-ST and 45/2012-ST impose service tax on renting of immovable property under RCM when services are provided by a director to the company. The Tribunal's prior decisions in Cords Cable Industries Ltd. and Varaha Infra Ltd. addressed similar issues, focusing on the capacity in which the director provided the premises.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the Director provided the godown as an individual owner or in his capacity as Director. It relied on precedents where service tax under RCM was not leviable if the premises were provided by the Director in personal capacity rather than as a corporate officer. The Tribunal found that the rent was paid to the Director individually and not in his official capacity, thus negating the applicability of RCM.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's records indicated rent payments to the Director for godowns. The Revenue contended that as per the Notifications, the company was liable to pay service tax under RCM. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of evidence showing the Director acted as a corporate representative in providing the premises.Application of Law to Facts: Applying the legal principle that service tax under RCM on renting immovable property is only attracted when the provider is acting in a specified capacity, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax on rent paid to the Director in his individual capacity.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued for applicability of RCM on rent paid to the Director, relying on the Notifications. The appellant argued that the Director was an individual owner and not acting as Director. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument, relying on consistent judicial precedents.Conclusion: The demand of service tax on rent paid to the Director under RCM was held unsustainable and set aside.Issue 3: Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation for Service Tax DemandRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 permits extended period of limitation for service tax recovery in cases of suppression or fraud. However, the Tribunal has consistently held that extended limitation cannot be invoked where the demand is revenue neutral or where there is bona fide belief of non-payment.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that since the demands on both counts were set aside on merits, it was unnecessary to decide the limitation issue. It noted its own precedents that extended limitation is not invocable in revenue neutral cases.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's books of accounts were maintained and payments were made through banking channels, supporting bona fide belief.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the limitation issue in light of the findings on substantive issues.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue sought to invoke extended limitation; the appellant denied suppression or fraud. The Tribunal found no need to address this further.Conclusion: The issue of limitation was not decided, but the Tribunal indicated extended limitation would not apply in revenue neutral scenarios.Significant Holdings:'The demand of service tax on the amount of commission paid to the foreign agents for booking of export orders is not maintainable on the principle of revenue neutrality as in the event of charging service tax, the appellant would be entitled to Cenvat credit.''No service tax is leviable on the rental amount paid to the Director of the Company, as the same was paid to him in his individual capacity as the owner of the godown.''In view of the consistent stand taken by the Tribunal, we find that the demand of service tax on the amount of commission paid to the foreign agents for booking of export orders is not maintainable on the principle of revenue neutrality.''Since we have decided the issue on merits in favour of the appellant with regard to the demand of service tax on both the counts, it is not necessary to go into the issue of limitation for invoking the extended period, although this Tribunal has held that in case of revenue neutrality, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.'The Tribunal established the core principles that service tax demands under RCM on commission paid to foreign agents for export orders are unsustainable when the appellant is entitled to refund and Cenvat credit, embodying the principle of revenue neutrality. Similarly, service tax on rent paid to a Director is not leviable if the Director provides the premises in individual capacity. The extended limitation period is not applicable in revenue neutral cases. The final determination was to set aside the impugned demand and allow the appeal.