TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 25,07,47,722/- along with interest thereon and imposing equivalent amount of penalty. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us. 2.1. This is the second round of litigation and the matter had come up earlier before this Tribunal. The case was examined and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration vide order No. A/676/13/CSTB/CI dated 06/03/2013 - 2014 (33) S.T.R. 105 (Tri. - Mumbai) with the following directions: "6. In view of the above factual and legal position, we are of the considered view that the matter has to go back to the original adjudicating authority for consideration afresh with regard to the question, whether he has any jurisdiction to demand service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Africa etc. These branch offices are engaged in 'Software Development and Consultancy Service' and these services are provided to overseas customers. Considerations for the services rendered abroad are received by the branches who raised such bills on the customers. Thereafter, after deducting the expenditure incurred for rendering the services abroad, excess of income over expenditure of the branches is remitted to their head office of the appellant in India. The department was of the view that the services rendered by the overseas branches on behalf of the parent-company falls under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' and accordingly, the entire amount received by the overseas branches are liable to service tax. Therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are not independent entities and they are part of the appellant's organisation. Therefore, if the branches have undertaken service to the overseas customers (for which expenditure was incurred which was reimbursed), it cannot be considered as service received by the appellant as there cannot be a service to self. Even if it is held that the appellants have rendered the service, since service has been rendered to the overseas customers, it amounts to export of service. Thirdly, the appellant has received the proceeds in convertible foreign exchange and they have not made any payments to the branches. Therefore, the question of payment of any service tax on reverse charge basis under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 would not arise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../permanent establishments of the appellant abroad by the main office situated in India, is not chargeable to service tax under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 as such reimbursement of expenditure cannot be considered as a consideration for the services rendered. 4. The learned Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue while reiterating the findings of the adjudicating authority submits that under Section 66A a legal fiction has been created whereby a service provided by a person who has a business or fixed establishment or has a permanent address or usual place of residence in a country other than India and such services are received by a person who has his place of business, fixed establishment and permanent address in India and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....road. It cannot be said to be a consideration for any services rendered. The services rendered abroad has been received by the branch office located abroad. Merely because the expenditure incurred for receipt of the services were reimbursed to the foreign branch, the transaction does not amount to import of services. The reason is that the service provider, service recipient and place of performance of service are all located abroad. The purpose of Section 66A is not to tax service transactions taking place abroad. Such transactions are beyond the taxing jurisdiction of the Indian authorities. This view is supported by the decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra. Further, in respect of outbound tourism, in the case of Cox & Kings....