2018 (9) TMI 1664 - AT - Service Tax

Business Exhibition service - Department is of the view that during the relevant point of time, management of business exhibition and other events were liable to service tax under Event management Service - Section 73A (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - Business Exhibition Services were made exigible to service tax only w.e.f. 10.09.2004 - As per Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applicable to service tax matters, during the period of dispute, only amounts of tax collected in excess of what was assessed and determined on taxable service , was required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government. This position was altered only by the introduction of sub-section 1A in Section 11D on 10.05.2008 by Finance Act, 2008. So also, Section 73A of the Act was inserted only w.e.f. 18.04.2006 by Finance Act, 2006. The amounts collected during the impugned period on a service which was not then a taxable service , cannot be sought to be recovered under the erstwhile provisions of Section 11D ibid when the sub-section (1A) thereof was not even inserted - The demands made therefore are outside of the scope of the statutory provisions as prevailed during the period of dispute. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act to service tax matters.
2. Demand of service tax on 'Business Exhibition Service' for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions concerning tax collection and deposit to the Central Government.
4. Validity of the impugned order upholding the demand.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding the demand for service tax on 'Business Exhibition Service' provided by the appellants during 2002-03 and 2003-04. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand based on Section 73A (2) of the Finance Act and Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. The issue revolved around the applicability of these provisions to the services provided by the appellants.

2. The appellant argued that Section 11D, which required depositing tax collected, only applied to services that were liable for service tax during the relevant period. They contended that Business Exhibition Services became exigible to service tax only from 10.09.2004. Therefore, the demands made for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 were not in line with the statutory provisions in force during that period.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 11D and noted that the introduction of sub-section 1A in Section 11D on 10.05.2008 altered the requirement for depositing tax collected in excess. Additionally, Section 73A of the Act was inserted only w.e.f. 18.04.2006. Since the demands were based on a service not classified as taxable during the relevant period, the Tribunal concluded that the demands made were outside the scope of the statutory provisions prevailing at that time. Consequently, the impugned order upholding the demand was set aside.

4. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential benefits as per the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting statutory provisions correctly concerning tax collection and deposit to the Central Government. The decision clarified the limitations of demanding tax based on services not classified as taxable during a specific period, emphasizing adherence to the statutory framework in force at the time of the transactions.