TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service" with reference to service rendered to one of their clients in USA. The appellants engaged various other vendors in USA in order to help them in rendering software services to their main client in USA. They have paid consideration for such services to these various vendors. The Revenue entertained a view that the appellants have received services under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service" in terms of Section 2(19) of Section 65(105)(vzb) of Finance Act, 1994. In other words, the appellants were held to be liable to service tax on reverse charge basis as importers of such service. The proceedings initiated against the appellant concluded in the impugned order. The Original Author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C accepted the legal position and further, clarified the same vide circular no.275/7/2010-CX.8A dated 30.06.2010. In such situation, there is no scope for alleging suppression, willful misstatement with intention to evade tax. Further, he also submitted that they were registered with the Department for paying service tax and tax, if any, paid on this dispute shall be rightly eligible for them as a credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Hence, there is no motive not to pay tax in this case. 4. Ld. AR contested the grounds of appeal. It is submitted that the present dispute is not with reference to the services rendered by the appellant onsite to their clients outside India. The dispute is with reference to the services, which were provided....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents based aboard. In other words, the appellant's services to the main client, which is not being taxed being exported service is facilitated and supported by various vendors. The same is covered under the tax entry "Business Auxiliary Service". We agree with the proposition of the Revenue that this is a reverse case of the ratio laid down in Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Paul Merchants Limited (supra) and as affirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. - 2017-TIOL-1863-HC-DELST. It is clear that the destination has to be decided on the basis of the place of consumption, not the place of performance of service. As such, we hold that the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the s....