2014 (5) TMI 260 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Business Auxiliary Service - Held that - Prima facie discern textual complexities in the several provisions of Section 66 A of the Act, which for the nonce are not susceptible to any easy or coherent exposition. These provisions and their legal import must await the disposal of the appeal - quantum of service tax liability confirmed under the adjudication order pertains to the periods 2006 07 to 2010 11 and proceedings were initiated pursuant to the show cause notice dated 13.10.2011, invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act. - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Additional grounds on legal issues sought in appeal.
2. Confirmation of service tax liability, penalty, and interest.
3. Tax liability under reverse charge mechanism for services from overseas branch offices.
4. Interpretation challenges in Section 66 A of the Act.
5. Quantum of service tax liability for specific periods.
6. Stay application and conditions for waiver of pre-deposit.

Analysis:
1. The Miscellaneous Application requested permission to introduce additional legal issues in the appeal, which was granted by the Tribunal.

2. The Commissioner Central Excise confirmed a substantial service tax liability, penalty equivalent to the tax imposed, interest under Section 75, and penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, in an adjudication order against the appellant.

3. The proceedings involved the appellant receiving "Business Auxiliary Service" from its overseas branch offices under the reverse charge mechanism. The appellant contested this attribution, arguing that no taxable service occurred when an overseas branch provides services to the parent company. The legislative fiction in Section 66 A was debated, emphasizing that the levy of tax under reverse charge mechanism should not apply in this scenario.

4. The Tribunal acknowledged textual complexities in Section 66 A of the Act, indicating challenges in providing a clear exposition. These complexities were deemed to require further examination during the appeal process.

5. The confirmed service tax liability related to the periods 2006-07 to 2010-11, with proceedings initiated based on a show cause notice invoking the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act.

6. The stay application was disposed of by granting a waiver of pre-deposit and staying further proceedings for realizing the adjudicated liability. The appellant was required to remit a specific amount within a set timeline, failing which the appeal would be rejected. Compliance with the conditions was crucial for the stay to remain effective.