2018 (7) TMI 266 - AT - Service Tax

Technical Inspection and Certification Service - demand of service tax - Held that - When services of Technical Inspection and Certification Service is rendered to any person by a Technical and Certification Agency the same would be taxable under the category of Technical Inspection and Certification Service - In the present case the appellant is not a Technical and Certification Agency but is a manufacturer of P&P medicaments. There is nothing in the show cause notice as to how the appellant would fit into the classification of Technical Inspection and Certification Service. Merely because they obtained registration and paid service tax for a short period they cannot for forced to pay service tax under a category which is not applicable to the appellant or their activity rendered by them - the income received from LRL does not fall under the category of Technical Inspection and Certification Service - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Whether the services rendered by the appellant to M/s. Lessac Research Laboratories qualify as Technical Inspection and Certification Service for the purpose of service tax liability.
2. Whether the appellant, being a manufacturer of P&P medicaments, can be considered a Technical and Certification Agency under the relevant provisions.
3. Whether the demand for service tax under the category of Technical Inspection and Certification Service on the income received by the appellant from M/s. Lessac Research Laboratories is legally sustainable.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant initially paid service tax under the category of Technical Inspection and Certification Service for services rendered to M/s. Lessac Research Laboratories. However, upon legal advice, the appellant stopped paying service tax as it was believed that the services provided did not fall under this category. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand for service tax. The appellant argued that the services should be classified as Scientific or Technical Consultancy service, not Technical Inspection and Certification Service. The Tribunal noted that the appellant is not a Technical and Certification Agency, and the services provided do not fit the definition of Technical Inspection and Certification Service as per Section 65(105)(zzi). The demand was found to lack a legal basis, and the appeal was allowed.

Issue 2:
The definition of Technical Inspection and Certification under Section 65(108) and Technical and Certification Agency under Section 65(109) was considered. It was highlighted that for services to be taxable under the category of Technical Inspection and Certification Service, they must be provided by a Technical and Certification Agency. The appellant, being a manufacturer of P&P medicaments, does not qualify as a Technical and Certification Agency. The Tribunal emphasized that the show cause notice did not clarify how the appellant's activities fit into the classification of Technical Inspection and Certification Service. The lack of clarity in the notice rendered the demand unsustainable.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal observed that the appellant had paid service tax under the wrong category due to a mistaken belief, which was not sufficient to establish liability under Technical Inspection and Certification Service. The department's confusion regarding whether the appellant was rendering Technical Consultancy Service or Technical Inspection and Certification Service further weakened the case for demanding service tax under the latter category. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the income received from M/s. Lessac Research Laboratories did not fall under the category of Technical Inspection and Certification Service, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

← Previous Next →