9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of licensed information technology software which was originally owned by Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation, Singapore. With effect from 16/05/2008 Information Technology Software Services (ITSS) were subjected to levy of Service Tax. Appellant obtained centralized Registration for payment of Service Tax. There were certain contracts entered into by appellant with the clients where invoices were raised before 16/05/2008 when there was no levy of Service Tax on said service but the obligation continued even after 16/05/2008. Therefore, it appeared to Revenue that in respect of such resale of licenses for providing services where obligation got crystallized by receipt of consideration before 16/05/2008 for rendering of services beyond 16/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the contract i.e. prospective period beyond 16/05/2008. Thus, it appears that consideration received in advance by HCL from its clients towards sale and distribution of electronically downloaded software product licences with software assurances , to be provided on or after 16/05/2008, the sale of which was made under invoices issued by HCL prior to 16/05/2008, shall attract service tax as applicable with effect from 16/05/2008, on pro-rata basis. " The said Show Cause Notice clearly indicates the contention by Revenue through the said Show Cause Notice. On the basis of above contention the appellants were called upon to show cause as to why Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,95,00,237/- should not be recovered from them under the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here the contract was entered into in the year 2002 and part of the Services rendered was after 10/09/2004 and in such situation whether the part of the service rendered after 10/09/2004 was taxable or not. He further submitted that this Tribunal in the said case held that Service Tax was not leviable on that part of IPR Service which was transferred before 10/09/2004, though the part of the service rendered was 10/09/2004. He further contended that the said Final Order and findings were squarely applicable in the present case. 4. Heard the ld. A. R. for Revenue who has taken us through the findings of the Original Authority in the impugned Order-in-Original. He further supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
