9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction services, production of programs under "Programme Producer's Service", "Business Support Service" etc. and are registered with the Service Tax department. Appellant entered into Distribution and Marketing Agreement with STARL, Hongkong with an object of obtaining exclusive rights from STARL to distribute and market its broadcasting channel. By this agreement, appellant got the exclusive rights of distribution of channel Vijay for television viewing through all forms of satellite namely DTH for India, Nepal, Bhutan. It appeared to the department that fee given by appellant to STARL for this purpose was liable to service tax and since STARL did not have office in India, appellant was to discharge tax liability on reverse charge bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be done by appellant. Service tax has been paid by appellant in respect of fees collected by them from Star India Pvt. Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 1,54,83,318/-. (iv) The issue is no longer res integra and has been settled in favour of the appellant by Tribunal in the case of ESPN Software India (P) Ltd. Vs CST - 2014 (35) STR 927 (Tri.-Del.). Although department has filed appeal before the Supreme Court against the said decision, same is pending and no stay has been granted thereon. (v) The facts in ESPN Software India (supra) and facts in their own are pari materia as is evident from the following chart : (vi) For these reasons, Ld. Advocate submits that in the present appeal also, tax liability demanded cannot sustain. 3. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lared that so long as the radio or television programme broadcast is received in India and intended for listening or viewing, as the case may be, by the public, such service shall be a taxable service in relation to broadcasting, even if the encryption of signals or beaming thereof through the satellite might have taken place outside India." Without doubt, the definition covers a wide range of services that would be rendered under that head. 5.2 The issue that comes up for appellate decision in this case is whether in the facts of the case, where no broadcasting signals have been uplinked by foreign service provider to the appellant, but instead such signals have been directly sent to the MSOs/COs, whether tax liability can arise for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing" in Section 2(c) of Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990 and noted that the appellant did not have any technology for receiving signals or down linking facilities. ; that signals are directly received by Multi System Operators/Cable Operators from the satellite through set top box and smart cards supplied by appellant; that technically they are not recipient of any broadcasting service. The Tribunal held that in these facts, 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. We find that facts in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
