TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned, during the relevant period the appellant was not providing any taxable service, as Information Technology Software Service became taxable with effect from 16 May, 2008, upon enactment of Section 65 (53a) in the Finance Act, the appellant is not liable to pay any service tax on the transactions with Xansa USA during the relevant period - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal Nos. ST/70032/2016 & ST/70157/2015-CU [DB] - Final Order Nos. 70827-70828/2017 - Dated:- 30-8-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.) AR for Revenue Shri Vishal Kumar (Advocate) for Assessee ORDER Per : Anil Choudhary The issue in these cross a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 40 lakh per annum which was paid after deduction of tax as per the law of land. 3. As per the agreement dated 18 December, 2006, which was effective with effect from 01 April, 2005 with M/s Xansa US having its registered office at Wilmington, USA. It was agreed that Steria has a number of clients in US whereas M/s Xansa US agrees to provide strategic sales and marketing services to Steria for procuring business from direct clients in US and further Steria is also willing to avail of strategic sales and marketing services from M/s Xansa US for procuring business from direct clients in US. Against such services Steria will pay the M/s Xansa US a fee of 5% as a service charge on the total amount billed and then M/s Xansa US will deploy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such customized software. Thus, the assessee Steria prima facie disagreed with the view of the Department and refused to accept that they are liable to pay service tax under the classification BAS. Subsequently Steria obtained centralized service tax registration on 27 November, 2007 and deposited the tax with respect to the transaction with Xansa PLC by GR challan's of ₹ 4,51,326/- on 2 February, 2008 and ₹ 4,75,463/- on 07 March, 2008, thus aggregating ₹ 9,26,789/- on the service value of ₹ 36,87,300/- and ₹ 38,84,500/- thus aggregating ₹ 82,22,500/-. 5. It further appeared to the Department that Steria have contravened the provisions of the Act and the Rules as they never informed the Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with regard to receipt of service from Xansa USA is concerned the learned counsel also states that under the admitted facts they were not providing any taxable service during the period in question, the services received by them in the nature of BAS from the Xansa USA being procurement of orders for export of their information technology software service, no liability to service tax arose. He further states that the issue on this score is squarely covered by the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Jetlite India Ltd versus CCE 2011 (21) STR 119 (Tri.-Delhi). In the said ruling under the fact that Jetlite India Ltd (formerly Sahara Airlines) were providing business, promotion and publicity service to Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch person can be said to have rendered the taxable service which can be classified under the said clause. Unless the service recipient is shown to have been engaged in rendering some service to others and the service provider is shown to have rendered his service for promotion or marketing of such service provided by the service recipient to others, the question of creating liability under the said Act in terms of Section 65(19)(ii) read with 65(105)(zzb) of the said Act does not arise. It was also held that taxable event under the Act is the rendition of service. It is on the activity conducted or service rendered by the service provider to its customer that attracts the provisions of the Finance Act. Further, in view of the premises that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08, upon enactment of Section 65 (53) (a) in the Finance Act. Thus, the transactions with Xansa USA is squarely covered by the law as explained in the case of Jetlite (supra). Thus, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay any service tax on the transactions with Xansa USA during the relevant period. In view of our findings, the impugned order is not tenable and accordingly we set aside the impugned order, so far it confirmed the demands along with penalty. Thus the Appeal (appeal no. ST/70157/2015) stands allowed. The appellant Steria India Ltd shall be entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with law. The Appeal (appeal no. ST/70032/2016) filed by Revenue is dismissed. ( Dictated and pronounced in Court ) - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
