TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l training to their staff outside India from overseas commercial training institute who did not have any office in India. As per the Board's Circular No. 59/8/03, dated 20-6-2003 which reads as under :- "If an employer hires an outside commercial coaching or training centre for imparting some training to its employees, then the payment made by said employer to such coaching centre will be chargeable to service tax under the category of commercial training of coaching services as per clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further as per Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the person receiving services in India, was liable to pay service tax in relation to any taxable services provided by person who is a non-residen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir own pocket to the service provider outside India which has been reimbursed by the respondent to their employees or not? The lower appellate authority has dealt the issue in detail and after considering the legal provisions for imposing liability of service tax for the services availed outside India by a resident of India deals in clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 and after considering the legal provisions the lower appellate authority has observed as under :- "The above provisions makes it clear that for levy of service tax, at least a part of the service has to be rendered in India. It is clear from the facts of the case that the entire training of the employees were done abroad and the services were received by the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on services provided within the country." Therefore, the services which were received abroad by the employees of the appellants company abroad were not liable to levy of service tax. The appellants have also contended that in respect of the services received from abroad, there was no legal authority for levy of service tax before enactment of Section 66A and accordingly as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Indian National Ship Owners Association v. UOI - 2008-TIOL-633-HC-MUM-ST, the demand for the period 1-7-2003 to 18-4-2006 was in any case not sustainable. However, since the impugned demand is found to be unsustainable as discussed above, the argument is not required to be examined. The law is settled that if the demand itself i....