Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2009 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (3) TMI 326 - AT - Service TaxDemand under the category of Business Auxiliary Services . The applicants are providing the services to their parent company abroad and are receiving the amounts - In terms of the clarification in Board s circular dated 24-2-2009, when the location of the service recipient is abroad, then the services would be considered as exported and there would not be any liability in respect of the receipts rendered for the said services. As the issue is squarely covered, we are inclined to waive the pre-deposit of the entire amount in respect of the Business Auxiliary Services and the interest/penalties. - As far as the Broadcasting agency Services is concerned, the applicants had already paid an amount of Rs. 20,99,941/-. Therefore, we order waiver of the pre-deposit of the balance amount of dues demanded in the impugned order. stay granted
The appellate tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore heard an appeal regarding service tax demands made on a broadcasting agency services and business auxiliary services. The bench found that the demand for broadcasting agency services was within the period of limitation and had already been paid partially. For business auxiliary services, the tribunal considered the applicability of the Export of Services Rules, 2005, and concluded that when the service recipient is abroad, the services are considered exported, and there is no liability for the services rendered. As a result, the tribunal waived the pre-deposit of the entire amount for business auxiliary services and interest/penalties, and ordered waiver of the balance amount of dues for broadcasting agency services. The stay applications were disposed of, with no recovery proceedings to be taken by the revenue until the appeals are decided. The stay order would continue even after 180 days. The judgement was pronounced and dictated in open court by S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman and M.V. Ravindran. The appellant was represented by S/Shri G. Shiva Dass and G. Venkatesh, while the respondent was represented by Ms. Sudha Koka. The order was given orally by T.K. Jay the Member (T).
|