9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST/2030/2011 - 1239/2011 - Dated:- 22-11-2011 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, M. Veeraiyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri G. Shivadas, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Singla, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. Heard both sides on the stay petition. 2. Applicant has entered into an agreement with foreign based client for development of software. In this connection they have enlisted the services of their subsidiary based in USA. The applicant entered initially into an agreement on 15-5-2001 which was in vogue till 31-3-2007. It is claimed that there is a new set of agreements between the applicant and their subsidiary effective from 1-4-2007. The agreement envisaged that the subsidiary shall pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not liable to pay Service tax for the period prior to 18-4-2006 and the demand relating to the said period is Rs. 2,82,06,894/-. At the most, amounts realized towards marketing expenses could be treated as falling under the category of business auxiliary services and Service tax liability amounting to Rs. 66,03,956/- relating to the period 18-4-2006 to 31-3-2007 during which period the 2001 agreement was in force stands paid by them. (e) He further submits that they have treated the entire activity as IT services and as recipient they are paying Service tax on IT services with effect form 16-5-2008 in as much as the final products/services are exported by them they are also getting refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r we note that the applicant is paying Service tax under the category IT services with effect from 16-5-2008 and in view of exporting the product/services, they are receiving refund in terms of Rule 5 of the CENVAT credit rules. We also agree with the submission of the learned advocate that for the period prior to 18-4-2006 no Service tax liability will be attracted in respect of services received by the applicant. We also agree with his submission that it is a case of revenue neutrality. 5.4 Learned advocate also claimed that they have entered into a fresh agreement with effect from 1-4-2007 and that they paid a sum of about Rs. 66,00,000/- under business auxiliary services for the period from 18-4-2006 to 31-3-2007. Whether the new agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
