Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Singapore Telecom (i) Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.S.T. Delhi

2017 (4) TMI 901 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Business Auxiliary Service - agreement with holding company for providing promotional activities - Held that: - The issue involved in this case is no more res-Integra in view of the decision in the case of [2016 (7) TMI 1209 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], while examining the scope of Export of Service Rules, 2005 with reference to BAS, where it was held that destination has to be decided on the basis of place of consumption, not the place of performance of service in case of Business Auxiliary Service - d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rt services to its holding company M/s. Singapore Telecommunication Limited, located in Singapore. The appellant had entered into the agreement with its holding company for providing the services namely, Promotional activities to market the Sing Tel brand, solely to create awareness of the Sing Tel brand in India; assisting in liasing with bilateral partners to promote goodwill and working relations; assisting in coordinating the provision of general product information to interested parties; an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g penalties on the appellant. In support of confirmation of the adjudged demand, the Ld. original authority has held that the services provided by the appellant do not satisfy the requirement of clause (b) of proviso to Rule 3(i) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that Business Auxiliary Services provided by the appellant are used ou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

elhi - CESTAT) (TM). 3. On the other hand, the ld. AR appearing for the respondent reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that the conditions of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 have not been satisfied by the appellant inasmuch as the services are provided and consumed both within the territory of India. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. The short question involved in this appeal for consideration by the Tribunal is, as to whether, the dispute .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vice of Business Auxiliary Service. The appellant did not discharge the service tax liability during the disputed period on the ground that the services were exported by it and as such, were not liable to service tax under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Export of Service Rule, 2005. 7. In order to fulfill the conditions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 ibid, the primary requirement is that the service recipient should be located outside India; and the service should be used in relation to commerce or in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rity that even though the service recipient was based in Singapore, since it has a Pan Asia presence including India, the conditions of Rule 3(3) ibid has not been satisfied, we are of the view that such observations will not hold good for confirmation of service tax demand, for the reason that the recipient of such service is the overseas entity and such service were for use in or in relation to its business activities. Further, even if M/s. Bharti Tele services is the long term strategic inves .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0 Tri.- Del.]. The Tribunal referred to various earlier decisions and held: 5. On the first issue relating the appellants liability under BAS it is now a well settled legal position that the service involved is in fact exported out of India and there is no service tax liability. In M/s. Paul Merchants Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2013 (29) S.T.R. 257 (Tri. - Del.) it is held that what constitutes export of service is to be determined strictly w.r.t. the provisions of Export of Services Ru .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version