TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - In the present case, since the appellant had provided the services to M/s.Bentley, Australia, such service should be construed as export, in view of the clarification furnished by the CBEC - demand set aside. Commercial Training or Coaching Service - demand on the ground that the same was provided by the appellant for imparting skill and knowledge and also the services do not fall under the exclusion part of such definition - Held that: - It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant is an Information Technology Company, engaged in providing IT Services. The software provided by the appellant cannot be used by the customers /clients, unless their employees are properly trained to use such software. Thus, in such an eventuality, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, maintenance or repair service. However, proposed service tax demand under Business Auxiliary Service and Commercial Training or Coaching Centre Service was confirmed along with penalties, on the following grounds:- (a) Business Auxiliary service was received by Bentley, Australia for its business in India and also used/ utilised in India. Thus, service tax demand of ₹ 27,21,346/- is recoverable from the appellant under such category of service; (b) As regards Commercial Training or Coaching Centre Service, the same was provided by the appellant for imparting skill and knowledge and also the services do not fall under the exclusion part of such definition. Accordingly, the appellant is liable to pay service tax of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the sides and perused the case records. 6. The fact is not under dispute that during the relevant period, the appellant had provided the Business Auxiliary Service (promotion and marketing of goods) to the overseas entities and for providing such service, it got payment in foreign exchange. However, the service tax demand on such taxable service was confirmed on the ground that those services were used in India for business promotion on behalf of the recipient of service. We find that with regard to categorization of service for the purpose of consideration as export, under Export of Service Rules 2005, the CBEC vide Circular dated 24.02.2009 has clarified that for category III services, falling under Rule 3(1)(iii) ibid, even if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formation were collected were not to be considered as recipient of service provided by the appellant/assessee. In Airbus Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, Delhi reported in 2016-TIOL-2312-CESTAT-DEL. = 2016 (45) S.T.R. 120 (Tri.Del.), the Tribunal after referring to the decisions in Paul Merchants Ltd. (supra), Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd. v. CST, New Delhi reported in 2014 (36) S.T.R. 766 (Tri.-Del.) and Gap International Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014-TIOL-465-CESTAT-DEL. = 2015 (37) S.T.R. 757 (Tribunal) held that what constitutes export of service is to be determined strictly in accordance with the Export of Service. Rules, 2005. It is the person who requested for the said service and is liable to make payment for the same, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
