2011 (7) TMI 887 - AT - Service Tax

Import of services 0- Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - held that - prior to 18-04-2006 when section 66A was introduced in Finance Act 1994, the provisions in Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) did not have virus to tax the services rendered by a person located outside India in the hands of the person receiving such service in India. - Since the entire period involved in this dispute is prior to 18-04-2006, the Appeal succeeds on this count alone.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to pay service tax on services received from abroad for advertisement, publicity, and sales promotion, as well as Research and Development.
2. Taxability of payments made for sponsorship of Cricket World Cup and other tournaments organized by International Cricket Council.
3. Taxability of payments made for receiving technology and technical knowhow from the parent company.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1:
The Appellant, a manufacturer of electronic goods and provider of taxable services, paid in foreign currency for various services during 2002-03 to 2004-05. A show cause notice was issued demanding service tax on these services received from abroad. The Appellant contested that the services were performed outside India, arguing against the import of service. However, an adjudication order confirmed service tax liability along with interest on the payments made for advertisement, publicity, sales promotion, and Research and Development.

Issue 2:
Regarding the payments made for sponsorship of Cricket World Cup and other tournaments, the Appellant argued that they paid for the display of their logo and telecasting of the logo images during TV transmission of the events. They contended that this activity did not fall under the taxable entry for services of an Advertising Agency. The Appellate Tribunal considered this argument in light of the taxability of the services rendered by a person located outside India to the recipient in India. The Tribunal found that since the period in question was prior to the introduction of relevant provisions, the Appeal succeeded on this ground alone.

Issue 3:
The second component of the payments was for receiving technology and technical knowhow from the parent company. The Appellant claimed that this service fell under Intellectual Property Service, which became taxable only from a specific date. They argued that such services cannot be taxed under the entry for Consulting Engineer, as done in the adjudication order. However, the Tribunal's decision primarily focused on the applicability of tax provisions before a certain amendment, leading to the success of the Appeal based on the timeline of the relevant legal framework.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the Appeal based on the timing of the legal provisions, without delving into the other issues raised by the Appellant. The decision highlighted the significance of the legislative timeline in determining the tax liability of services received from abroad, providing consequential reliefs to the Appellant.