9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in various cases relied upon by the appellant s own case SBI CARDS AND PAYMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.S.T. DELHI [ 2017 (12) TMI 237 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that Even for the period afier 1st July 2012 the provision of telecommunication service by Vertzon India to Verizon US satisfied the conditions under Rule 6A (1) (a), (b), (d) and (e) of the ST Rules and was therefore an 'export of service. The amount received for the export of service was not amenable to service tax. The impugned order is not sustainable - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. S. S. GARG , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) For the Appellant : Ms. Krati Singh and Ms. Samiksha Uniyal , Advocates For the Respondent : Shri Shivam Syal , Authorized Representative ORDER PER S. S. GARG These two appeals filed by the appellant are directed against the impugned order dated 24.03.2014 and 30.04.2013 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original. Since, the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r following the due process, the Adjudicating Authority vide the orders dated 27.1.2011 and 4.3.2011 confirmed the demand of service tax raised in SCNs after giving the benefit of cum tax alongwith interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. She further submits that the appellant is not providing any service to VISA/Mastercard and both parties have entered into cost sharing agreements for the issuance of co-branded credit cards wherein VISA/Mastercard is providing financial assistance to the Appellant in promoting the credit card services provided by the Appellant as they will also benefit from the expansion of market for the Appellant's services in India. She further submits that the credit cards issued by the Appellant with the brand name of VISA/Mastercard is only for easy identification of associated payment settlement platform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce provided by VISA/Mastercard and the said services relating to promotion of brand of goods/services have been made taxable with effect from 1.7.2010 with the insertion of Section 65(105)(zzzzq) vide Notification No. 24/2010-ST dated 22.6.2010. Further, Circular No.334/1/2010-TRU dated 26.2.2010 also clarified the difference between business auxiliary service and newly proposed service. She further submits that the services provided by the appellant to VISA/Mastercard qualify as exports of service as per Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 ('Export Rules') under Category III services. She also submits that services failing under Rule 3(1)(iii) should be seen qua the person receiving the service and not the place of performance of the service. The Circular No. 111/5/2009-ST dated 24.2.2009 clarifies that phrase used outside India is interpreted to mean that the benefit of the service should accrue outside India. She further submits that the interpretation of services provided from India and used outside India has been considered in various judgements and the issue is no more res integra. It has been consistently held that the services rendered by Indian enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of both the parties and perusal of material and the terms and conditions entered into by the parties in the agreement, we find that the said agreement is basically nothing but cost-sharing agreement. Further, we find that Revenue wants to tax under business auxiliary service whereas the services provided by the appellant relates to promotion of the brand of VISA/Mastercard and not any product/service provided by VISA/Mastercard. Further, we find that the business auxiliary services are covered under the category of III services as per Rule 3(1)(iii) of export of service Rules and the service failing under 3(1)(iii) should be seen qua the person receiving the service and not the place of performance of the service. Further, we find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in various cases relied upon by the appellant s own case cited (Supra). Further, in the appellant s own case SBI Cards and Payment services Pvt Ltd. CST Delhi, Final Order No. ST/A/58115/2017-CU previous period has held that the activity carried out by the appellant is export of service and the department has accepted the said order of the Tribunal and has not filed any appeal and therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tination of the services in question has to be treated abroad. The destination has to be decided on the basis of the place of consumption, not the place of performance of Service. 54. To summarise the conclusions: It made no difference that Verizon India may have provided telecommunication service and not business support services since to qualify as export of service both had to satisfy the same criteria (ii) The provision of telecommunication services by Verizon India during the period January 2011 till 1st July 2012 complied with the two conditions stipulated under Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the ESR to be considered as 'export of service, in other words, the payment for the service was received 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 fulfili 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
