2017 (5) TMI 1087

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ia, (Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per S.K. Mohanty : This appeal of Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 16.01.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi. 2. Brief fact of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the business of providing marketing and Help Desk services to its holding company M/s. Radware Ltd., Israel. The appellant is registered with the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the services rendered by the Respondent are basically provided and performed in India and thus, it cannot be said that the services were used outside India. 3. The ld. AR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the submissions made in the grounds of appeal. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the services rendered by the respondent, to its holding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 14 (36) S.T.R., 766 (Tri. Del.) and GAP International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Delhi reported in 2015 (37) S.T.R. 757 (Tri. Del.). 5. We have heard both sides and perused he appeal records. 6. It is an admitted fact on record that the respondent had under taken various activities pursuant to the contract entered into with the holding company, who is located abroad and that the benefit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X