2018 (7) TMI 536 - AT - Service Tax

Import of services or not - STARL have rendered broadcasting service to the appellant in India and the former do not have an office in India - Held that - The very same in respect of the same appellant for a previous period had come up before this Tribunal in VIJAY TELEVISION (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI 2017 (8) TMI 838 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where it was held that the appellant cannot be held as a service recipient since foreign broadcaster is engaged in up-linking signals to a satellite outside India and down-linking of signals is done by MSOs/COs in India and appellant technically does not receive any broadcasting service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of service tax on the ground of "import of service" due to broadcasting service provided by a foreign entity to the appellant in India.

Analysis:
The issue in dispute pertains to the demand of service tax and confirmation against the appellants based on the argument that a foreign entity provided broadcasting services to the appellant in India, constituting an "import of service." The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving the same appellant, where it was established that the appellant did not directly transmit broadcasting signals but instead transferred rights to distribute signals to another entity. The actual broadcasting transmission was carried out by the foreign entity through satellite uplinking to MSOs/COs in India. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant did not technically receive any broadcasting service as the signals were not uplinked by them. This aligns with the decision in a similar case involving ESPN Software India, where it was held that a party cannot be considered a service recipient if they do not receive the broadcasting service directly. The Tribunal found the facts in the present appeal to be similar to the ESPN Software case and upheld the decision that the tax liability against the appellant cannot be sustained. The Tribunal noted that the matter had been taken to the Apex Court but no stay had been ordered, leading to the conclusion that the tax liability should be set aside based on the established legal principles.

The Tribunal reiterated that there were no new facts or reasons to deviate from the previous decision regarding the tax liability for the earlier period. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits as per the law. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that in cases where a foreign entity transmits broadcasting signals directly to operators in India without the involvement of the appellant in the transmission process, the appellant cannot be held liable for service tax as they do not technically receive the broadcasting service. This decision was based on established legal precedents and interpretations of the definition of broadcasting services, emphasizing the technical aspects of signal transmission and service receipt.