2013 (2) TMI 536 - Commissioner - Service Tax

Stall charges and Event conducted abroad Whether Stall charges and Event conducted abroad is liable to service Tax Appellant are providing services of event management, Busjiness Exhibition and sale of space It was noticed that there is Short payment of ST, due to non-payment of service tax on Stall charges, events conducted abroad. Held that - appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the services rendered for conducting events at Srilanka, as it is export of services and is exempted from levy of Service tax Appeal allowed In favour of assessee. Second issue is whether demand is hit by limitation of time - Ground on which the proviso to extended period of time was invoked is that the appellant had not disclosed the disputed activities in ST 3 forms or in any other manner to the Department. The appellant had submitted a copy of letter dated 23-9-2004 addressed to the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner duly acknowledged by the Jurisdictional Superintendent of STC wherein they had informed their activities to the Department. So the allegation that the disputed activities were not disclosed to the department fails.There is no suppression of facts in the present case with an intention to evade payment of Service tax and the proviso to extended period of limitation of time cannot be invoked in the present case. Therefore demand raised by the Department for the period 2003 to October 2007 vide SCN dated 16-10-2008 is barred by limitation Appeal allowed In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand is hit by limitation of time.
2. Whether the appellant is liable to pay Service tax on stall charges, events conducted abroad claiming export of services, and media charges during the disputed period.

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Limitation of Time:
The appellant contested that the demand raised by the Department for the period 2003 to October 2007 was time-barred as they regularly filed ST3 returns disclosing their activities. The appellant argued that the extended period should not be invoked when returns are regularly filed. The Commissioner found that the appellant had disclosed their activities to the Department in a letter dated 23-9-2004, acknowledged by the Department. As the Department was aware of the appellant's activities and there was no intention to evade payment, the Commissioner held that the proviso to the extended period could not be invoked. The Commissioner concluded that the demand for the period was time-barred, except for a year prior to the date of the Show Cause Notice.

Issue 2 - Service Tax Liability:
Regarding the liability of the appellant to pay Service tax on stall charges, events conducted abroad, and media charges, the Commissioner examined the evidence provided by the appellant. The Commissioner noted that the appellant had documentation supporting the export of services during the disputed period, such as a letter from the High Commission of India, NOC from Indian Trade Promotion Organization, and invoices from the venue in Colombo. Based on the evidence, the Commissioner determined that the appellant was not liable to pay Service tax on the services rendered for conducting events in Sri Lanka and on the charges collected towards sale of space for advertisements in print media, as they were exempted from the levy of Service tax. Consequently, the Commissioner set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, the arguments presented by the appellant, and the Commissioner's findings and conclusions on each issue, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal judgment.