2019 (1) TMI 1430 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - inclusion of visiting charges in assessable value - Architect Service - Consulting Engineer Service - Held that - For the period involved, reimbursable expenditure is not liable to be included in that value of the taxable services, the amendment for which makes it includible only with effect from 14.05.2015. Therefore, there is no liability to pay the balance of the demand. Penalties - Held that - The issue involved interpretation - no suppression, fraud, etc., could be attributed to the assessee - the penalties imposed cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Demand of service tax on "visiting charges" for the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2009, including penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Demand of Service Tax on "Visiting Charges"
The lower authority demanded service tax on "visiting charges" incurred towards travel and hotel expenses. The appellant, engaged in Architect and Consulting Engineer Services, voluntarily offered to pay a portion of the demand due to inability to locate past documents. The appellant argued that reimbursable expenses should not be part of taxable services based on the interpretation of Section 67 of the Finance Act. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant contended that only expenses incurred after May 14, 2015, should be included in the valuation of taxable services. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, holding that reimbursable expenses were not liable for inclusion in the taxable services' value for the period in question. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, relieving them of the balance of the demand.

Issue 2: Penalties Imposed
The lower authorities imposed penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act. The appellant argued that penalties should not be sustained as the issue of interpretation was settled only by the recent ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal concurred, noting that no suppression or fraud could be attributed to the appellant due to the unsettled interpretation of the law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed, considering the lack of willful non-compliance on the part of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, absolving the appellant of the balance of the demand due to non-inclusion of reimbursable expenses in the taxable services' valuation for the relevant period. Additionally, the penalties imposed were set aside as there was no intentional wrongdoing on the part of the appellant, given the recent clarification provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.