2008 (10) TMI 146 - AT - Service Tax

Import of services - Appellant have already paid the entire Service Tax demanded along with interest - only grievance is against the imposition of huge penalties - Original Authority had dropped the proceedings accepting the appellant s contention that they would be liable for payment of Service Tax only with effect from 16-6-2005. There would not be liability in respect of services rendered abroad prior to this date. As the issue is purely a question of interpretation, in my view, the imposition of penalties is unjustified

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability for payment of Service Tax on commission paid to commission agents.
2. Interpretation of the effective date for liability of Service Tax.
3. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing and exporting sanitaryware, utilized the services of commission agents abroad for marketing their products. The Revenue contended that the appellants were liable to pay Service Tax on the commission paid to the agents under Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Original Authority accepted the appellant's plea that they would be liable for Service Tax only from 16-6-2005 due to an explanation inserted in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Commissioner, in revision, held that the appellants were liable for Service Tax under "Business Auxiliary Services" even from 16-8-2002. The Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 20,103/- under Section 73, along with interest under Section 75, and imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 78. The appellants challenged this decision before the Appellate Tribunal.

2. The appellants argued that they had already paid the Service Tax with interest, claiming entitlement to Cenvat credit. They highlighted conflicting views on the issue during the relevant period and referred to a Board's Circular clarifying the territorial scope of Service Tax. The appellants cited case laws to support their contention that liability for services provided outside India arose only from 18-4-2006 with the introduction of Section 66A. The Revenue, however, supported the Commissioner's decision, asserting that the legal position was correctly considered.

3. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellants had paid the demanded Service Tax and interest, primarily concerned with the penalties imposed. Given the interpretation issue regarding the effective date of liability, the Tribunal deemed the penalties unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside all penalties imposed in the impugned order but confirmed the demand for Service Tax and interest as uncontested. The appeal was allowed on the terms of setting aside penalties while upholding the Service Tax and interest demands.