The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the bulk of the service tax demands were barred by limitation while also ruling that reimbursements of electricity charges collected from tenants cannot be subjected to service tax.
The bench of Ajayan T.V (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) however, upheld a limited denial of CENVAT credit amounting to ₹12,706 relating to specified employee welfare expenses, while setting aside all penalties imposed on the company.
The appellant/assessee challenged an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai, concerning service tax demands for the period between 2007 and 2012. The dispute involved three principal issues—service tax on sub-leasing of office premises, inclusion of electricity reimbursements in taxable value, and denial of CENVAT credit on various input services.
Buy Now: Service Tax Judgement E-Compilation : June 2026
The appellant/assessee is a registered service tax assessee engaged in providing consulting engineering and renting of immovable property services, had taken office premises on lease and subsequently sub-leased them to its group company, Metso Power India Ltd., on a back-to-back basis without any mark-up. The company also sub-let part of the premises to EPT Technical Services Pvt. Ltd.
During departmental audit, authorities alleged that the company had failed to pay service tax on rental income received from the sub-lessees, had excluded electricity charges recovered from tenants from the taxable value of renting services, and had wrongly availed CENVAT credit on several input services. Based on these allegations, show cause notices were issued proposing recovery of service tax, interest, penalties and reversal of CENVAT credit.
One of the principal arguments advanced by the appellant was that the issue involved an interpretational dispute regarding service tax liability on back-to-back sub-leasing arrangements and therefore the extended limitation period could not be invoked.
The Tribunal, however, rejected this contention. It carefully distinguished a sub-lease from a subcontract, observing that although both terms contain the prefix “sub,” they represent fundamentally different legal relationships.
The Bench explained that while a subcontractor provides services to the principal contractor, a sub-lessee is a recipient of the renting service who pays consideration for occupying immovable property for its own business purposes. Consequently, precedents dealing with service tax liability of subcontractors were held to be inapplicable to cases involving sub-leasing of immovable property.
The Tribunal further held that merely because rent was recovered without any mark-up did not alter the legal character of the transaction. The nature of a lease or sub-lease must be determined from the contractual arrangement and surrounding circumstances rather than the amount of consideration recovered.
The Tribunal ruled decisively in favour of the assessee on the question of electricity charges recovered from tenants.
Relying upon long-settled judicial precedents, including decisions of the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court recognising electricity as “goods,” the Bench held that reimbursement of actual electricity charges based on units consumed cannot be regarded as consideration for any taxable service.
Accordingly, collections representing actual electricity consumption were held not liable to service tax, and the corresponding demand was completely set aside.
A major aspect of the ruling concerns invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The Tribunal observed that the department had merely alleged suppression because the disputed transactions were not reflected in ST-3 returns. However, it found no evidence of deliberate concealment, fraud or wilful misstatement necessary for invoking the extended limitation period.
The Bench noted that the audit had not uncovered any unrecorded transactions and that all relevant information was available in the company’s books of account. It reiterated the Supreme Court’s principle that mere failure to disclose information does not amount to suppression unless accompanied by an intention to evade tax.
Consequently, the Tribunal held that the extended limitation period was wrongly invoked. Since the relevant show cause notice had itself become time-barred, the entire service tax demand arising from that notice was quashed.
With regard to CENVAT credit, the Tribunal differentiated between credits covered by the time-barred show cause notice and those falling within the normal limitation period.
The Bench accepted that disputes relating to eligibility of various input services involved interpretational questions. Accordingly, it set aside the denial of CENVAT credit covered by the earlier show cause notice as being barred by limitation.
However, for the subsequent Statement of Demand, the Tribunal upheld the denial of CENVAT credit on specified services including: Mediclaim insurance covering family members, Staff dining expenses, Anniversary expenses, Vehicle maintenance, Vehicle insurance, and Membership and subscription expenses.
The Tribunal agreed that these services were primarily employee welfare or personal expenditure lacking sufficient nexus with taxable output services. The disallowance, quantified at ₹12,706, was directed to be verified by the adjudicating authority before recovery along with applicable interest.
Having concluded that the department failed to establish suppression or intention to evade tax, the Tribunal also set aside all penalties imposed under the Finance Act, 1994.
The Bench held that in the absence of the statutory ingredients necessary for invoking the extended limitation period, penalties could not survive.Â
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
