TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SLP by the Revenue in Apex Court and the Apex Court has dismissed the SLP in view of the fact that the amount of service tax liability confirmed under this Head are prior to 18.04.2006. therefore, by following the same, appellant is not liable to pay Service tax. Liability of Service tax - Various amounts received for marketing of the services of the parent concern - Held that:- the issue is settled by a majority order of the Tribunal in the case of Microsoft Corporation (I) (Pvt) Ltd Vs CST Delhi [2014 (10) TMI 200 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] and many more in the favour of appellant. Therefore, the Service tax liability is not sustained. Demand of Service tax for the period July 2003 to 19.11.2003 - Denial of benefit of Notification No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e marketing services undertaken by them in India for their own parent concern. The appellant herein has during the period prior to 18.04.2006 had repatriated accounts to their own sister concern, parent concern and various other service providers for the services rendered by them to the appellant. Revenue authorities were of the view that this amount which is repatriated is liable to service tax as per the provisions of Rule 2(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules. Department also came to a conclusion that for the period 15.3.2005 to 30.11.2005 appellant is liable to discharge service tax liability on the various activities undertaken by him for marketing of the goods of their own parent concern in India and during the period July 2003 to 19.11.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 3. Learned A.R. reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 5. Undisputed facts are appellant herein had rendered various services which are exported. They also have paid various amounts to the service providers who are situated abroad and have also undertaken the marketing of the services of their parent concern in India. It is the case of the Revenue that services as indicated are liable for tax. 6. As regards the issue No. 1 as to service tax liability on the amount paid by the appellant to foreign entities, it is undisputed that the said amounts which have been paid by the appellant is prior to 18.04.2006. The amounts have been paid by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view has been expressed by following decisions of this Tribunal: 1) Paul Merchants Ltd [2012-TIOL-1877-CESTAT-DEL] 2)Gap International Sourcing (India) Pvt Ltd [2014-TIOL-465-CESTAT-Del] 3) Blue Star Ltd Vs CCE Bangalore[2008-TIOL-716-CESTAT-BANG] 4)ABS India Ltd Vs CST Bangalore [2008(17)STT 223 (Tri-Bang)] 5)Lenovo India Pvt Ltd Vs CST Bangalore [2009-TIOL-911-CESTAT-Bang)] 6) IBM India (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore [2010-TIOL-154-CESTAT-Bang] 7) National Engineering Industries Ltd Vs CCE Jaipur [2008-TIOL-939-CESTAT-DEL] In view of the fact that the issue is now settled in favour of the appellant, we hold that the demand of service tax liability cannot be sustained. 7. As regards the demand of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtible foreign exchange, from payment of service tax. The Notification, in a proviso, laid down that nothing contained in the notification shall apply when the payment received in India in convertible foreign exchange for taxable services rendered was repatriated from or sent outside India . It was this Notification which was rescinded by Central Government by issuing Notification no. 2/2003-ST dated 1.3.2003. The Board was called upon to consider representations received from service sector, wherein an apprehension was raised that export of service would be affected adversely in the international market on account of withdrawal of notification no. 6/99-ST. The Board dispelled this apprehension by clarifying that export of services would co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
