TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant is required to discharge the service tax liability during the period 16.08.2002 to 30.11.2005 on the amounts paid by them to various entities situated abroad and whether they are liable to discharge the service tax liability on the marketing services undertaken by them in India for their own parent concern. The appellant herein has during the period prior to 18.04.2006 had repatriated accounts to their own sister concern, parent concern and various other service providers for the services rendered by them to the appellant. Revenue authorities were of the view that this amount which is repatriated is liable to service tax as per the provisions of Rule 2(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules. Department also came to a conclusion that fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order passed by the Bench in this very same case to submit that for the period when the Notification No. 6/1999 was withdrawn, the Bench has held that despite the same, the fact of export of services is not disputed and no tax liability arises. 3. Learned A.R. reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 5. Undisputed facts are appellant herein had rendered various services which are exported. They also have paid various amounts to the service providers who are situated abroad and have also undertaken the marketing of the services of their parent concern in India. It is the case of the Revenue that services as indicated are liable for tax. 6. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Revenue that the sales commission received are chargeable for service tax liability. In our considered view this issue is also now settled by a majority order of the Tribunal in the case of Microsoft Corporation(I)(P)(Ltd) (supra). The same view has been expressed by following decisions of this Tribunal: 1) Paul Merchants Ltd [2012-TIOL-1877-CESTAT-DEL] 2)Gap International Sourcing (India) Pvt Ltd [2014-TIOL-465-CESTAT-Del] 3) Blue Star Ltd Vs CCE Bangalore[2008-TIOL-716-CESTAT-BANG] 4)ABS India Ltd Vs CST Bangalore [2008(17)STT 223 (Tri-Bang)] 5)Lenovo India Pvt Ltd Vs CST Bangalore [2009-TIOL-911-CESTAT-Bang)] 6) IBM India (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore [2010-TIOL-154-CESTAT-Bang] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 9.4.1999. The Board was examining the effect of withdrawal of Notification no. 6/99-ST. This Notification exempted the taxable service specified in section 65(48)( of the Finance Act, 1994 provided to any person, in respect of which payment was received in India in convertible foreign exchange, from payment of service tax. The Notification, in a proviso, laid down that nothing contained in the notification shall apply when the payment received in India in convertible foreign exchange for taxable services rendered was repatriated from or sent outside India . It was this Notification which was rescinded by Central Government by issuing Notification no. 2/2003-ST dated 1.3.2003. The Board was called upon to consider representations receive....