AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of information Technology Software Service during the period January, 2006 to December, 2006. 2. The brief facts are that M/s Steria India Ltd (formerly known as M/s Xansa India Ltd) are working under the STP scheme and have got approval from the STP I Noida and have also got customs warehousing licence. They are engaged in the business of developing and export of customised computer software and services connected therewith. They also render BPO services to their clients located outside India. As per show cause notice served on 02 June, 2009. It appeared that M/s Steria India Ltd (SIL for short) are not complying with the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Service Tax Rules as they have neither obtained registration nor are payi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the agreements aforementioned from both the overseas companies for an aggregate amount of Rs. 3,22,15,503/-. It further appeared that the services so received are completely covered under the purview of BAS as defined in Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The definition has been reproduced in the SCN. Whereas it has been noticed that BAS does not include any information technology service and any activity that amounts to manufacturewithin the meaning of Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It further appeared that as the service providers located in US and UK do not have any office in India, M/s Steria India Ltd is required to pay service tax on reverse charge basis in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of STR, 1994 read wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvices received from the M/s Xansa, USA and M/s Xansa PLC during the period in dispute January 2006 to December 2006, with further proposal to appropriate Rs. 9,26,789/- already deposited alongwith interest and further penalty was proposed under Sections 76, 77 and 78. 6. The SCN was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 28 January, 2015 by the Additional Commissioner, was pleased to confirm the proposed demand with interest and also imposed penalty under Sections 76, 78 and 77 of the Act. 7. Being aggrieved the appellant assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order was pleased to set aside the demand for the period prior to 18 April, 2006 (when Section 66A was brought on the statute) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orporation for the period July, 2003 to January, 2007, tax was demanded and adjudicated. While confirming the demand it was held that the material on record established that Sahara Corporation had launched various housing and real estate projects and in that respect the travelling passengers were sought to be targeted as the potential customers and for that purpose agreement was entered between the two and Jetlite in order to promote business of Sahara Corporation of real estate projects, published and printed logo of Sahara Corporation on its air tickets, boarding pass, baggage tags etc in consideration of payment assured and paid by Sahara Corporation to Jetlite at the rate fixed per passenger under the contract. This Tribunal held that p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iness, it could not be said to have been part of Business Auxiliary Service during the relevant period and in any case that the activity of Sahara Corporation being in the nature of sale of immovable properties. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 9. The learned AR for Revenue supports the appeal of Revenue wherein the grounds are that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in deleting the penalty under Section 76 and further grounds is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in deleting the demand for the period prior 18 April, 2006. 10. Having considered the rival contentions we hold that so far the show cause notice relating to transactions with M/s Xansa PLC (UK....