9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted service. 2.2. The demand of Rs. 56,40,348/- is confirmed on the ground that the applicant has provided 'Broadcasting Services' which cannot be considered as 'export of service'. 2.3. The demand of Rs. 15,81,388/- is in respect of 'Business Auxiliary Service' as the applicant received 'Business Auxiliary Service' from two foreign companies. 2.4. Remaining demands of approximately Rs. 5 lakhs in respect of 'Renting of Immovable Property Service', 'Sale of space or time for Advertisement' and 'Broadcasting Services'. 3. The applicant is mainly contesting the demands of Rs. 95,11,529/-, Rs. 56,40,348/- and Rs. 15,81,388/-. In respect of the demand of Rs. 95,11,529/-, the contention of the applicant is that as per the adjudicating author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant is that as the service recipient is outside India who has paid the consideration in the convertible foreign exchange. As the service recipient is outside India, therefore such service cannot be treated as 'export of service'. The demand is on the ground that advertisements were broadcasted ultimately in India and that as broadcasting is performed in India and therefore, it cannot be treated as 'export of service'. The applicant relied upon Boards Circular No. 111/05/2009-ST dated 28.2.2009 wherein it has been clarified that for the services that fall under the Category III [Rule 3(1)(iii)], the relevant factor is the location of the service receiver and not the place of performance. The applicant also relied upon the decision of the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property right and as per the provisions of Section 65(55a) of the Finance Act, which means any right to intangible property, namely, trademarks, designs, etc. does not include copyright. In the present case, the applicant has transferred copyright and therefore, the same is not included in the definition of 'Intellectual Property Service'. Therefore, it cannot be said that the same is taxable service and it cannot be exempted service. We find merit in the contention of the applicant in this regard. 11.2. In respect of the demand of Rs. 56,40,348/-, we find that the service recipient is outside India though the part of the advertisements is also broadcasting in India. The Board vide Circular No. 111/05/2009-ST dated 28.2.2009 clarified th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
