2017 (12) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and M/s Master Card International, USA, the appellants were authorized to use the brand name of VISA/Mater Card in their credit cards. The agreements stipulated various obligations on the part of the appellant which included the promotion of the brand and business of VISA and Master Card. For such promotion activities the appellants received consideration from the other parties to the agreement. The Revenue entertained a view that such promotional activities are liable to Service Tax and accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellant to demand and recover Service Tax under business auxiliary service in terms of Section 65 (19) of Finance Act, 1994. The Original Authority decided the case and issued the impugned order. He hel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n activity of promotion in India and the services are rendered in India. As such he contested the ground taken by the appellant with reference to export of service. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. We note that in pursuance of agreements with Master Card/Visa the appellant did provide services which can be categorized under BAS, in India. However, for these services which are category III (Under Rule 3 of the Export of Service Rules) the place of provision of service will be determined by the location of recipient of such service. In the present case, the fact that the service recipients, with whom the appellants entered into agreements are located outside India is not in dispute as can be seen from the proposals....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ents in India, who Is liable to make payment for these services and who used the service for his business, is located abroad, the destination of the services in question has to be treated abroad. The destination has to be decided on the basis of the place of consumption, not the place of performance of Service." 54. To summarise the conclusions: (i) It made no difference that Verizon India may have provided 'telecommunication service' and not 'business support services' since to qualify as export of service both had to satisfy the same criteria. (ii) The provision of telecommunication services by Verizon India during the period January 2011 till 1st July 2012 complied with the two conditions stipulated under Rule 3 (1)....