9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclusion - Admittedly, the other parties to the agreement with the appellants have received the services. The Service Tax being destination based consumption tax, the present case will cover the requirements for export of services. The decision in the case of Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi III, Division-XIV & Anr. [2017 (9) TMI 632 - DELHI HIGH COURT] referred, where it was held that When the Master Supply Agreement between Verizon India and Verizon US is examined, it is plain that the recipient of the service is Verizon US and it is Verizon US that is obliged to pay for the services provided by Verizon India. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/801/2011- [DB] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that in terms of the agreements entered into with these two foreign entities the appellant did promote the brand and business of these parties to the agreement. However, he submitted that these services were to the benefit and consumption of these parties to the agreement who are located outside India. Accordingly, in terms of Export of Service Rules, 2005, BAS is covered under category III of Rule 3 of Services and in the present case the activities are with reference to export of service. The considerations were also received in convertible foreign exchange. He contested the finding of the Original Authority to the effect that the services were rendered, consumed, used and utilized in India. It is the submission of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were actually consumed and utilized in India. We are not in agreement with such conclusion. Admittedly, the other parties to the agreement with the appellants have received the services. The Service Tax being destination based consumption tax, the present case will cover the requirements for export of services. 5. In this connection, we refer to the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The High Court observed as below:- 51. In the considered view of the Court, the judgment of the CESTAT in Paul Merchants Ltd v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra) is right in holding that The service recipient is the person on whose instructions/orders the service is provided who is obliged to make the paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived by Verizon India in convertible foreign exchange and the recipient of the service was Verizon US which was located outside India. (iii) That Verizon India may have utilised the services of Indian telecom service providers in order to fulfil its obligations under the Master Supply Agreement with Verizon US made no difference to the fact that the recipient of service was Verizon US and the place of provision of service was outside India. (iv) The subscribers to the services of Verizon US may be 'users' of the services provided by Verizon India but under the Master Supply Agreement it was Verizon US that was the 'recipient' of such service and it was Verizon US that paid for such service. That Verizon India and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
