9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at:- The very same in respect of the same appellant for a previous period had come up before this Tribunal in VIJAY TELEVISION (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI [2017 (8) TMI 838 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same appellant for a previous period had come up before this Tribunal in Appeal ST/202/2009 which was disposed vide Final order No.41722/2018 dt. 11.08.2017 in favour of the appellant. The relevant portion of that order is reproduced as under : "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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute herein is not relating to selling of time slots for broadcasting or obtaining sponsorship programs. The grant of rights by appellant is provided to Star India Pvt. Ltd. However, the transmission of broadcasting signals is done directly from abroad by Star Asia Region FZ-LLC, Dubai to the MSOs/COs. The same issue had been considered by the Tribunal in the case of ESPN Software India (P) L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... echnically 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 presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
