Idle Capacity Compensation Of Installed Production Capacity Not Taxable as It Is Export Of Service: CESTAT

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that idle capacity compensation is not taxable it is an export of service. The bench ofSomesh Arora (Judicial Member) and Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) has upheld the dropping of service tax demand, observing that compensation received towards underutilization of installed production capacity qualify as a “declared service” under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 but is included in export of service. The respondent/assessee, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 29 and 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is a subsidiary of Lanxess Deutschland GmbH, Germany. Under a contract manufacturing agreement, Lanxess India agreed to maintain and utilize manufacturing capacity at its Jhagadia plant in Gujarat to produce specified goods for its parent company. The agreement provided for a manufacturing fee payable per unit of goods delivered; and idle cost compensation, payable in case of underutilization of committed production capacity. During the period July 2012 to March 2016, the Indian subsidiary received ₹67.53 crore from its parent company towards underutilized capacity. The Department viewed this compensation as consideration for a “declared service” under Section 66E(e), which covers “agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act.” Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on January 23, 2017, proposing recovery of ₹8.68 crore in service tax. The Department argued that the compensation related to underutilization of plant and machinery—an immovable property. The arrangement effectively involved granting the right to use manufacturing capacity. Under Rule 5 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, services related to immovable property are deemed to be provided at the location of the property—i.e., India. The transaction did not qualify as “export of service” because the Indian subsidiary and the German parent were establishments of distinct persons under the Finance Act. The department further contended that the adjudicating authority wrongly relied on CBEC clarifications and misapplied the Place of Provision Rules. Lanxess India argued that idle cost compensation was part of the pricing mechanism for goods manufactured and exported, not consideration for any service. The compensation was calculated on the basis of fixed manufacturing costs, volume variance, and arm’s length mark-up. The arrangement represented sale of goods, not toleration of any act or situation. Even if treated as service, it would qualify as export of service under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, since the service recipient was located outside India. A subsidiary and holding company are separate legal entities and cannot automatically be treated as “distinct establishments” merely due to shareholding. The Bench examined the scope of Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, which defines certain activities as “declared services.” The provision requires a clear contractual obligation to refrain from an act, tolerate an act or situation, or perform an act, for a consideration. Relying on judicial precedents including South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and subsequent CBIC circulars clarifying the taxability of liquidated damages and compensation, the Tribunal noted there must be a specific agreement to tolerate or refrain, supported by identifiable consideration. A mere flow of money does not automatically establish taxable service. Compensation arising from commercial arrangements or breach-related adjustments cannot be presumed to be consideration for “tolerating” an act. The Bench observed that the idle capacity compensation was intrinsically linked to the cost structure of manufactured goods and functioned as part of the arm’s length pricing mechanism, rather than payment for any independent service. It further noted that penal clauses or compensatory payments in commercial contracts are safeguards for business interests and cannot, by themselves, be treated as taxable services under Section 66E(e). The Tribunal held that the compensation for underutilization of installed production capacity did not constitute consideration for a declared service, and could not be brought within the ambit of Section 66E(e) in the absence of a specific contractual obligation to tolerate an act for consideration. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority’s order and dismissed the department’s appeal. Case Details Case Title: Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise-Vadodara Versus Lanxess India P Ltd Citation: JURISHOUR-129-CESTAT-2026(Ahem) Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 12085 of 2018-DB Date: 26.02.2026 Counsel For Appellant: Rajesh Nathan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) Counsel For Respondent: Senior Advocate V. Sridharan Click Here To Read Order Read More: 9 IRS Officers Promoted to Commissioner Grade

Idle Capacity Compensation Of Installed Production Capacity Not Taxable as It Is Export Of Service: CESTAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

International Customs Day Celebrated at Vigyan Bhawan: CBIC

ITR Are ‘Personal Information’ Under RTI; Spouse Can’t Seek Disclosure Without Larger Public Interest: Karnataka High Court

S. 68 Addition on Opening Loan Balances Held Unsustainable: ITAT

Company in Liquidation Can’t Be Revived Solely for Real Estate Development: Bombay High Court

More like this

International Customs Day Celebrated at Vigyan Bhawan: CBIC

ITR Are ‘Personal Information’ Under RTI; Spouse Can’t Seek Disclosure Without Larger Public Interest: Karnataka High Court

S. 68 Addition on Opening Loan Balances Held Unsustainable: ITAT

About us

Company

Categories

Idle Capacity Compensation Of Installed Production Capacity Not Taxable as It Is Export Of Service: CESTAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

International Customs Day Celebrated at Vigyan Bhawan: CBIC

ITR Are ‘Personal Information’ Under RTI; Spouse Can’t Seek Disclosure Without Larger Public Interest: Karnataka High Court

S. 68 Addition on Opening Loan Balances Held Unsustainable: ITAT

Company in Liquidation Can’t Be Revived Solely for Real Estate Development: Bombay High Court

More like this

International Customs Day Celebrated at Vigyan Bhawan: CBIC

ITR Are ‘Personal Information’ Under RTI; Spouse Can’t Seek Disclosure Without Larger Public Interest: Karnataka High Court

S. 68 Addition on Opening Loan Balances Held Unsustainable: ITAT

About us

Join Our Newsletter

Company

Categories