9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x is proposed to be demanded will vitiate the proceedings ab initio. The circulars dated 15.7.2011 and 19.12.2011 are very much applicable pari materia to IUC charges paid by the appellant to Sri Lanka Telecom, where it has been reiterated that when the service provider is located abroad, he is not covered under the definition under Section 65(105). Hence, the service provided by foreign vendors cannot be taxed under Telecommunication Service. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/Misc./40889/2013 and ST/19/2012 - Final Order No. 42381/2018 - Dated:- 6-9-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. G. Vardhini Karthik, Advocate for the Appellant Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the demand of service tax has not indicated as to the category of service provided or received by the appellant and which become liable to discharge service tax liability under section 65(105) of the Finance Act. 2.2 Vide the Finance Bill, 2007, new definition Telecommunication Service was incorporated under section 65(104) of the Act with effect from 1.6.2007 whereby IUC was specifically incorporated in the definition of Telecommunication Service to make it a taxable service. However, the Board had issued a Circular No. F.No. 137/21/2011 dated 19.12.2011, where it was clarified that there cannot be any taxability in respect of International Private Leased Circuits charges provided by a foreign telecom service provider since such p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vitiate the proceedings ab initio. 5.1 Be that as it may, we find that the circulars dated 15.7.2011 and 19.12.2011 are very much applicable pari materia to IUC charges paid by the appellant to Sri Lanka Telecom. It is also pertinent to note that Board s circular dated 12.3.2007 cited by the ld. AR was in the nature of an advisory to convey the amended definition of telecommunication service as proposed in the Finance Bill, 2007. Even otherwise, the subsequent circulars dated 15.7.2011 and 19.12.2011 will surely override the said earlier circular. In the event, we find in favour of the appellant. The impugned order cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
