2018 (4) TMI 770 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Services - sub-contract - business of promoting and marketing of cable broadcasting service - time limitation - Held that - prior to the issue of Circular dated 23.08.2007, admittedly, the Board had clarified on many occasions that when the full Service Tax liability was discharged by the main contractor, the sub - contractor need not to pay the Service Tax. Though, such clarification has no legal sanctity after the introduction of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 , the same , apparently , could lead to bonafide belief on the part of the assessee - Appellants like the present assessee-Appellants who acted as a sub-contractor. The demand is hit by limitation. The assessee - Appellants will get the benefit on the ground of limitation alone. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service Tax liability under 'Business Auxiliary Service' for promoting and marketing of cable broadcasting service.
2. Discharge of full service tax liability by the client.
3. Limitation of demand for the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.05.2005.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI addressed the grievance of the assessee-Appellants regarding their Service Tax liability under 'Business Auxiliary Service' for promoting and marketing cable broadcasting service for their client. The main issues raised were related to the discharge of full service tax liability by the client and the limitation of demand. The period in question was from 01.07.2003 to 31.05.2005, with a show cause notice issued on 23.09.2008. The Appellants argued that prior to the clarification issued by the Board on 23.08.2007, there were instructions indicating that sub-contractors were not liable for tax if the main contractor paid the full value. This led to a genuine belief for the Appellants not to register with the Department and pay Service Tax.

The Tribunal considered both sides and examined the material on record. It was noted that the demand raised on 23.05.2008 exceeded one year. While the Service Tax liability of the Appellants was linked to the tax paid by their client, it was emphasized that the Appellants' services should be treated separately. Despite previous clarifications by the Board, the Tribunal held that the demand was time-barred due to the introduction of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal acknowledged the Appellants' bonafide belief as sub-contractors and ruled in their favor based on the limitation issue alone. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal by the Appellants was allowed.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants, granting them relief based on the limitation issue. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of the limitation period in this case and the impact of previous clarifications by the Board on the Appellants' belief regarding their Service Tax liability.