TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 521
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13. 2.2. On the basis the said audit objection, a Show Cause Notice bearing no.37/2014 dated 22.04.2014 was issued demanding Service Tax of Rs.2,94,14,374/- (inclusive of cesses) along with interest and penalties. 2.3. The said notice was adjudicated vide the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2017, confirming the demand of Service Tax to the extent of Rs. 2,16,45,112/- (inclusive of cesses) along with interest, and imposing equal amount of tax as penalty; the ld. adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. For ease of reference, the details of the demands of Service Tax confirmed and dropped by way of the impugned order in respect of the various issues are provided below: - Issue Amount confirmed Amount dropped Amount appropriated Renting of Immovable Property 83943 7217979 Management or Business consultancy service 12,00,557 BAS, Intellectual property service, Other income 20360612 405445 59,27,953 Adjustment of tax 145838 Total 21645112 7769262 5927953....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is their case that demand for the period 2008-09 to 2011-12 falling under the extended period of limitation is barred by limitation in the absence of any evidence of fraud or suppression with an intent to evade payment of tax. (ii) Thus, out of the demanded service tax of Rs.83,943/-, the appellant submits that the tax demand of Rs.60,786/- covered under extended period of limitation cannot be enforced; the balance demand of Rs. 23,157 for FY 2012-13 is falling under normal period of limitation. Although, they have deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs.83,943/- with interest thereon, the appellant contends that they would be entitled to consequential refund. 4.2. Management & Business Consultancy Services (i) On this score, the appellant mentions that the impugned SCN proposed service tax demand of Rs.12,00,557/-, under the category of Management & Business Consultancy Services, for the period April-2008 to March-2011 under RCM on the basis of difference in Foreign Currency Expenses as shown in books of accounts vis-à-vis service tax returns. The appellant argues that the said expenses were not liable for service tax under RCM, as they were not incurred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Service Tax as amended by Notification No. 8/2004 - Service Tax; that the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned OIO confirmed the demand on the ground that the aforesaid notification exempting services for selling on tea is applicable only in India and not in respect of import of services. (ii) It is submitted that the Ld. Commissioner did not dispute the nature of services received by the appellant from outside India; that the aforesaid notification exempts services pertaining to sale of tea whether provided within India or outside India inasmuch as no exclusion has been carved out to restrict the exemption benefit for services rendered in India. Thus, it is contended that the demand on this count is liable to be set aside. 4.5. Demand on Royalty and Licence Fee under Intellectual Property Services (i) In the total tax demand of Rs. 2,03,60,612/- under the said head, demand of tax of Rs. 1,71,28,240/- has been raised on the expenses incurred for Royalty and licence fee paid outside India during 2008-09 to 2012-13. The appellant submits that the demand pertaining to the period up to 2011-12 falling under the extended period of limitation cannot be sustained. It is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lab analysis and differential freight. It is their submission that there cannot be tax on prize money paid for sports as it is not towards any receipt of taxable services and hence, the demand is not sustainable; further, in terms of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, where the services are physically performed outside India for performance-based services or events outside India, no service tax is payable. The Ld. Commissioner completely ignored the said Rules and arbitrarily confirmed the demand which cannot be legally sustained. 4.7. In view of the above submissions, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the demands confirmed in the impugned order, other than those admitted and paid by them along with interest. Further, it has been argued that no penalty is imposable on the admitted liabilities, as they have paid the tax along with interest before issue of the Notice; as per section 73(3) of the Finance act, 1994, there was no need to issue the Notice; hence, they also prayed for setting aside the entire penalty confirmed against them in the impugned order. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the case of Akshita Exports vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Surat [Final Order No. 10459 of 2025 dated 09.06.2025 in Service Tax Appeal No. 11773 of 2017] wherein the Tribunal, Ahmedabad has held that where the demanded service tax amount on import services is available as credit, demand under extended period of limitation cannot be sustained. In the present case, the entire demand of Rs. 12,00,557/- confirmed under this category in the impugned order falls within the ambit of extended period of limitation and hence, we hold that the demand confirmed on this count is not sustainable. Consequently, the demand on this score is set aside on the ground of limitation and revenue neutrality. 9. Regarding the total service tax demand of Rs. 2,03,60,612/- confirmed under the category of 'BAS, Intellectual Property Service, Other Income', we find that demand of tax of Rs.24,21,942/- has been raised and confirmed on the commission expenses paid for selling tea outside India for FY 2008-09 to 2012-13. It is observed that services towards selling tea (being agricultural produce) is wholly exempted from payment of service tax under Notification No. 13/2003-Service Tax as amended by Notificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 78 of the Finance Act, in respect of the demand confirmed in this regard for the normal period of limitation. 9.2. Out of the service tax demand of Rs. 2,03,60,612/-, we find that the demand of service tax of Rs. 8,10,429/- has been raised and confirmed on the expenses booked under nomenclature 'OTHERS'. We find that the said expenses have been incurred outside India during 2012-13. From a perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned OIO has dropped the demand in entirety for the period 2008-09 to 201112. However, he has confirmed the demand for FY 2012-13 for expenses incurred towards (i) Quality Claim, Lab Analysis and Differential Freight paid, (ii) Courier Charges, (iii) Training charges/Professional Fees paid for Sports and (iv) Price Money for Sports. However, we find that the Ld. Commissioner has not given any reason as to why service tax is payable on the expense incurred on the aforesaid remittances. We find that the above said expenses were not incurred with respect to any taxable service. The Revenue has also failed to adduce any corroborative evidence to substantiate their ....