9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were claimed to be under the category of "Business Support Services" by the Appellant. The Appellant was registered with the Central Excise as Service Tax Assessee and was providing the said services in India as well as outside India. Service Tax was appropriately paid on the value of services provided in India and no service tax was paid on services provided out of India being export of services. On the basis of third party data received from Income Tax Department about the value of services provided by the Appellant during the period 2015-16 & 2016-17, it was observed by the Service Tax Department that the value of services provided by the Appellant was declared less in its service tax returns than the value of services declared in Income Tax return for the same period. Enquiries were, therefore, initiated against the Appellant regarding short payment of service tax and it was found that the Appellant had not paid service tax on export services which valued to the differential amount between value declared in service tax returns and Income Tax returns. The Department alleged that said services were of the category of "Online Information and Data base Access or Retrieval services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s rendered by the Appellant. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Department reiterated submissions already made in the impugned order and contended that services provided by the Appellant were OIDAR services. He further contended that the claim of the Appellant of export of said services was legally not sustainable as in the case of OIDAR services, Place of Provision of Service was location of service provider. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. We find that the Original Authority has held the classification of aforesaid services under OIDAR mainly on the ground that the Appellant has provided electronic data only through computer network and as place of provision of service in the case of OIDAR is place of service provider, the claim of export of services provided to overseas customers was rejected. The short issue in this case is whether services provided by the Appellant during the period 01.04.2015 to 30.11.2016 were classifiable under category of OIDAR. We find that OIDAR service was defined under Rule 2(l) of the POPS Rules, 2012, during the said period, as below:- "(l) "online information and database access or retrieval services" means prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The following services will not be treated as "online information and database access or retrieval services" :- (i) Sale or purchase of goods, articles etc over the internet; (ii) Telecommunication services provided over the internet, including fax, telephony, audio conferencing, and videoconferencing; (iii) A service which is rendered over the internet, such as an architectural drawing, or management consultancy through e-mail; (iv) Repair of software, or of hardware, through the internet, from a remote location; (v)Internet backbone services and internet access services. As per the above clarifications, OIDAR services are those services which are delivered on internet or an electronic network for access or retrieval. 10. In the present case, we find that "Search Engine Optimization" service was provided by the Appellant, which is a process whereby client"s website visibility in search engines like, Google, Microsoft Bing etc. is increased. The process optimize search engine results of the client"s website. After processing of the website, it is uploaded to client"s server. Website visibility is commonly measured by the placement or ranking of the site on searc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... radesh Government. When they are not functioning, the appellants are not responsible and they do not lose their service charges. They are responsible and they do not lose their service charges. They are responsible only for the proper functioning of the equipment supplied by them. Moreover, the data is generated only by the Andhra Pradesh Government and the same is being used by the different wings of the Government, therefore, the appellant has also not provided any data. The responsibility of the appellant is to see that the network (WAN) functions. This cannot be equated with Online database access/retrieval services. Hence, we cannot understand how the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the appellant provides this service. The Commissioner's reference to Board's Circular with regard to internet service provided is not at all correct. In our view, the said Circular is not relevant and the services provided by the appellant are not similar to those provided by the internet service provider. In this connection, we would like to refer to another taxable introduced with effect from 1.7.2007, it is called Telecommunication Service." 11. In view of the above judici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
