2018 (3) TMI 509

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in Motion Singapore Pte. Ltd. (RIM, Singapore), in connection with the products and services for the period October, 2005 to February, 2010. The assessee-Appellants received consideration pursuant to the Service Agreement with RIM, Singapore. The Revenue considered the said receipt as a taxable amount for promotion and marketing of products and services of the client under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' in terms of Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, the assessee-Appellants availed Cenvat Credit of various input services. Certain credits availed during the period 2006-07 and 2008-09 were sought to be denied on the ground that certain premises were not registered with the Department thereby making those input serv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eration for such services. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. vs Asstt. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-III, 2017-TIOL-1863-HC-DEL-ST, and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Microsoft Corporation (I)(P) Ltd. vs CST, New Delhi, 2014 (36) STR 766 (T-Del.). In fact, the impugned order relied upon the interim order of the Tribunal in the case of Microsoft Corporation (I)(P) Ltd. (supra), which was not sustained in the final order; (ii) Regarding receipt of foreign exchange for such exported services, it is submitted that they have received foreign exchange through the bank and drawn the money in Indian rupee in India as no Indian rupee can be transf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issue. The Hon'ble High Court has held that, the amendment in Section 67 is not retrospective and as per Rule 6, it is the date when the amount is credited/debited is relevant and not the fact that the amount remains in the books. 5. The learned DR for the Revenue supported the findings of the original authority. He submits that the assessee-Appellants did not bring in detail the actual transfer of foreign exchange from Singapore bank to the bank of assessee-Appellants in India. Further, he submits that the receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange is a pre-condition to consider any service as exported out of India. In the present case, such condition should be made applicable for all the period under dispute. 6. After hear....