The New Delhi bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT], demanded re-adjudication on an order issued by the commissioner of central excise[CCE] demanding service tax on convention services and sponsorship services of Quality Council of India [QCI], the appellant.
The balance sheet and figures provided by the Quality Council of India from 2007 through 2008 to 2010-2011 showed that the convention services tax and sponsorship services tax was not paid for that period. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 19.10.2012 was issued.
The commissioner held that from 2007 to 2009 the income from ‘Quality Conclave’ and ‘Seminar receipts’ however, between 2009 and 2012 income of Rs.1,65,18,69 was received which is leviable to service tax. The commissioner further held that in the case of service tax under ‘Sponsorship Service,’ the documents furnished by the quality conclave of India did not support what they argued, and the argument was just an afterthought to compress the taxable value of services.
The QCI challenged the order on the grounds that, “The definition of ‘Taxable Services’, applicable up to May 15, 2008, and also, as amended w.e.f. May 15, 2008, is not applicable, to the present case”. They further held that there was no concrete evidence to prove that they had earned income from Quality Conclave and Seminar receipts in the financial year 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 and Income from other means cannot be presumed to be income earned from convention services, as it would be a great injustice and against the natural principles of justice to demand service tax under Convention Services for the F.Y. 2007-08.
The Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the definition of ‘Sponsorship Service’, as given under Section 65(105)(zzzn), the same needs to be provided to ‘anybody corporate’ or ‘Firm’, whereas the appellant does not qualify to be a ‘Body Corporate’, as they are a ‘Society’, registered under the ‘Societies Registration Act’ and that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and, therefore, needs to be set aside.
The Authorized Representative for the Revenue argued that the issues involved were totally different as they covered the services under the category of ‘Technical Inspection’ and ‘Certification’ and, therefore, the extended period of limitation has been rightly invoked.
After considering the documents and arguments of both sides the bench consisting of Binu Tamata [judicial member] and Hemambika R. Priya [technical member] decided that they were right to challenge the order and that it was a “non-speaking order”. They further added that the adjudicating authority should have at least appreciated the services rendered by the QCI.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
