2015 (10) TMI 858 - AT - Service Tax

Clinical Trial/Research Service from 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2006 - amendment in the nature of retrospective or not - Revenue contends that the same is taxable due to an addition of Explanation in respect of the definition of the Technical Testing and Analysis as per Section 65 (106) of the Finance Act, 1994. Held That - the original definition clearly excluded all these services from the definition since the expression, any service provided in relation to human beings and animals is very wide and therefore was no need for exclusive definition. On the other hand the definition prior to amendment would give an impression that technical testing and analysis can be definitely said to be in relation to human beings or animals was excluded. To make it includable in the definition, the amendment becomes necessary. Therefore, as contended by the appellants, the amendment in reality expounded the scope of the definition and therefore, it cannot be clarificatory in nature. Issue is no more res integra - Amendment in reality expounded the scope of the definition and therefore, it cannot be clarificatory in nature Impugned orders are unsustainable and are set aside - Decision made in the case of B.A. Research India Ltd. 2010 (2) TMI 230 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD and Synchron Research Services Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 357 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD followed Decided in favour of the Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the services provided by the appellant are liable to service tax under the definition of "Technical Testing and Analysis" under Section 65(106) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Whether the addition of an Explanation to the definition of "Technical Testing and Analysis" has retrospective effect.
3. Whether the impugned orders confirming demands, interest, and penalties are sustainable.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant provided Clinical Trial/Research Services to pharmaceutical companies, and revenue authorities contended that these services fall under "Technical Testing and Analysis." The adjudicating authority upheld the tax liability. The appellant argued that prior to the Explanation added from 01.05.2006, their activities were not taxable. The Tribunal referred to previous cases and held that the Explanation is not applicable retrospectively. The Tribunal analyzed the scope of the definition and clarified that the services provided by the appellant were not covered under the definition of Technical Testing and Analysis prior to the introduction of the Explanation. The impugned orders confirming the tax liability were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

Issue 2:
The debate centered on whether the Explanation to the definition of "Technical Testing and Analysis" had retrospective effect. The appellant argued that the Explanation expanded the scope of the definition, making their services taxable. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the Explanation was clarificatory and did not alter the existing law. Citing precedents and principles of statutory interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Explanation did not have retrospective effect. The Tribunal's decision was supported by authoritative pronouncements in previous cases, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders.

Issue 3:
The impugned orders confirming demands, interest, and penalties were challenged by the appellant. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and perusing the records, found that the orders were unsustainable. Relying on previous Tribunal decisions and legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the demands imposed on the appellant were not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, relieving the appellant from the tax liability.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the issues involved, particularly regarding the interpretation of the Explanation and its retrospective effect, led to the setting aside of the impugned orders and the allowance of the appeals in favor of the appellant.