9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 1538 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - declared service - deduction of an amount from the bills of the contractors in lieu of tolerating the various acts like poor performance or not meeting the obligations in full - period of dispute in the present appeal is from April 2013 to March 2016 - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in South Eastern Coalfields Limited 2020 (12) TMI 912 - CESTAT NEW DELHI observed that It is therefore not possible to sustain the view taken by the Principal Commissioner that penalty amount forfeiture of earnest money deposit and liquidated damages have been received by the appellant towards consideration for tolerating an act leviable to service tax under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act. Thus as the matter has been settled by decisions of the Tribunal and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes Customs has also issued a Circular wherein the views expressed by the Tribunal have been accepted it is not possible to sustain the order dated 15.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Conclusion - The retention of amounts through forfeiture and penalties did not constitute a declared service under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act 1994. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue considered in the judgment is whether the appellant, M/s Hindustan Zinc Limited, provided a "declared service" under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, by retaining amounts through forfeiture of earnest money/security deposits and fines/penalties from contractors, thereby making these amounts liable to service tax. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework revolves around the interpretation of "service" under section 65B(44) and "declared services" under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. Section 65B(44) defines "service" as any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration, including declared services. Section 66E(e) specifies "agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act" as a declared service. The Tribunal's decision in South Eastern Coalfields Limited and the Board Circular dated 28.02.2023 were pivotal precedents considered in the judgment. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the retention of amounts by the appellant constituted a "declared service" under section 66E(e). It emphasized that for an activity to fall under section 66E(e), there must be a specific agreement to refrain from an act, tolerate an act or situation, or to do an act, with a flow of consideration for this activity. The Tribunal found that the mere retention of amounts due to contractual breaches did not fulfill these criteria. Key evidence and findings: The appellant retained amounts through forfeiture and penalties due to contractors' non-compliance with contract terms. The Tribunal found that these amounts were not consideration for any service rendered by the appellant, but rather penalties for non-compliance, which were not intended as a service agreement between the parties. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the definition of "service" and "declared service" to the facts, concluding that the appellant's actions did not constitute a service under section 66E(e). The penalties and forfeitures were not intended as consideration for tolerating a breach but were safeguards for contractual performance. Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that no service was rendered as per section 65B(44), and the Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the penalties were not for tolerating breaches but for ensuring compliance. The department's reliance on the Board Circular was addressed, noting that the Circular clarified that only specific agreements with consideration for tolerating acts fall under section 66E(e). Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not render a "declared service" under section 66E(e) and thus was not liable for service tax on the retained amounts. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held that the retention of amounts through forfeiture and penalties did not constitute a "declared service" under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The core principle established is that for an activity to be taxable as a declared service, there must be a specific agreement to refrain from an act, tolerate an act or situation, or to do an act, with a flow of consideration for this activity. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the penalties were not consideration for any service rendered but were intended to ensure contractual compliance.
|
