2017 (10) TMI 748 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - includibility - charges for asset usage - Held that - It is not the case of Revenue that the equipment usage referred to in the impugned agreement is one that subsequently would have been taxable as supply of tangible goods - it is clear from the decision of this Tribunal in Sujala Pipes Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur 2014 (7) TMI 932 - CESTAT BANGALORE that discharge of VAT liability is sufficient to exclude operation of the Finance Act, 1994 on any transaction for which a consideration is received - demand set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of service tax
2. Inclusion of charges for asset usage in assessable value
3. Application of section 80(2) of Finance Act, 1994
4. Interpretation of section 65(105)(zzzz) of Finance Act, 1994

Confirmation of demand of service tax:
The case involved an appeal against an order confirming a demand of service tax along with interest and penalties imposed by the original authority. The appellant was engaged in providing 'management, maintenance, and repair service' as well as 'renting of immovable property service'. The dispute arose regarding the charges for 'asset usage' and 'open car parking space' in relation to services rendered to a specific entity. The appellant challenged the inclusion of charges for asset usage in the assessable value.

Inclusion of charges for asset usage in assessable value:
The appellant argued that the charges for asset usage pertained to equipment leased out to the recipient and were subject to Value Added Tax (VAT) under the State Government, thus exempt from central levy. They contended that since service tax on renting of immovable property had been paid before May 2012, they were entitled to the benefit of section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal found the appellant's contention regarding the discharge of tax liability under section 80(2) to be valid. The tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities' interpretation that denied the exclusion of charges for asset usage, emphasizing that the levy on 'supply of tangible goods' was restricted to goods not deemed as sale.

Application of section 80(2) of Finance Act, 1994:
The tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had fulfilled the requirements of section 80(2) by paying the service tax along with interest. This section enabled the waiver of penalties if the service tax due was paid within six months from the date the Finance Bill, 2012 received assent. The tribunal upheld the appellant's right to the benefit of this provision.

Interpretation of section 65(105)(zzzz) of Finance Act, 1994:
The tribunal found that the lower authorities' interpretation of section 65(105)(zzzz) was incorrect and that the exclusion of charges for asset usage should be allowed. It was noted that the discharge of VAT liability was sufficient to exclude the operation of the Finance Act, 1994 on any transaction for which consideration was received. Consequently, the penalties imposed were set aside, and the demand of duty on charges received for asset usage was also set aside.