TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I, dated 18-5-2010 [2011 (21) S.T.R. 2002 (Tri.-Mumbai)], which was challenged by the party before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Central Excise Appeal No. 77 of 2010. The Hon'ble High Court by order dated 31-8-2010 directed fresh consideration of the question whether the appellant should be directed to make any pre-deposit of Service Tax demanded under the head "Market Research Services". Accordingly, this matter is taken up for fresh consideration and decision. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits that no taxable service was involved in the appellant's transactions with WNS UK or WNS NA. In this connection, he refers to certain agreements and claims that nothing contained therein would consti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remittances by the overseas clients to the appellant through the commission agents were also in foreign exchange. The appellant was not registered with the department as a provider of 'Market Research Services' during the period of dispute, nor were they registered as a provider of 'Business Auxiliary Services' for the period from 1-7-2003, the date on which these services became taxable. Officers of the department visited their premises in July, 2003 and queried them on the nature of their activities. As required by the investigating officers, the appellant, in a letter dated 22-8-2003 addressed to the Supdt. of Central Excise, Vikroli, Mumbai, furnished all the details of their activities. From this letter, it appeared to the department t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment had no nexus with the alleged "market research service" of the appellant. Fairly, the learned Counsel has not raised the plea of time-bar inasmuch as this plea was not pressed before the Hon'ble High Court. Learned Counsel has, however, submitted that the appellant has financial hardships and hence unable to make any pre-deposit. 3. Learned Jt. CDR reiterates the relevant findings of the learned Commissioner contained in paragraph 4.6 of the impugned order. He particularly submits that the demand of service tax under the head "Market Research Service" is mainly based on the finding that large amounts were repatriated in foreign currency by the appellant to the overseas companies. It is submitted that the allegation relating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as WNS India had separate contracts with WNS UK and WNS NA. However, in a subsequent statement, Shri Sudhir Shetty clarified that the aforesaid payments to WNS UK and WNS NA were not payment made to them but, in fact, inter-­company transactions. On the basis of the statements of the senior functionary of the appellant-company and the documentary evidence gathered by the investigators, the show-cause notice alleged as above. In this scenario, as rightly pointed out by the learned Jt. CDR, the burden fell on the appellant not only to deny the allegation but also to disprove it. In this connection, we have perused their reply to the show-cause notice, which does not contain any substantive contention vis-a-vis the above allegation; it con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. Such invoices were required to be raised in UKGBP (UK Pound Sterling) or such other currencies agreed between the parties. A few invoices were also enclosed with reply to the show-cause notice. Copies of these invoices are available in the separate paper-book filed by the appellant. The learned Counsel has fairly admitted that all the invoices are not available and hence only sample invoices have been filed. One such invoice found at page No. 190 of the paper-book indicates that it was raised by WNS UK on WNS India for "Market and Management Services" rendered for the period from Sept, 2004 to March, 2005 as per the terms of agreement dated 13-1-2004. Prima facie, any amount paid by WNS India to WNS UK under this invoice was a considerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the head "Market Research Agency's Services". We have taken this view after considering the fact that, apparently, there is no dispute that the transaction in question would have been exempted from payment of Service Tax but for the repatriation of sizeable amounts by the appellant to the service recipients abroad. As rightly pointed out by the learned Jt. CDR, the relevant Notifications, which were in force during the period of dispute, clearly stipulated that benefit of exemption from payment of service tax would not be available to export of taxable services where the consideration received in foreign exchange for the services was subsequently repatriated. Prima facie, the appellant was not eligible for exemption and hence the demand of....