TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13/UG/DIV-GGN/2011 dated 04.03.2011 05/2011 dated 27.01.2011 Show cause notice CE-20/ST/R-III/BFN/SBI/446/2008/8181 dated 01.10.2009 CE-20/ST/R-III/BFN/SBI/446/2008/2822 dated 26.07.2010 Demand Rs. 13,40,892/- under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 Rs. 7,14,097/- under Proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act Interest Applicable under Section 75 of the Act Applicable under Section 75 of the Act Penalty Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Act Rs. 13,40,892/- under Section 78 of the Act Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Act Rs. 7,14,097/- under Section 76 of the Ac 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the credit card business and has entered into agreements with settlement platforms like VISA International Services Association (VISA) and Mastercard International Incorporated ('Mastercard') in relation to issuing the co-branded credit cards in India. Further, As per the agreement, VISA and Mastercard provided the Appellant with the financial assistance/support for marketing and advertising the credit cards in India and has also agreed to the incentives subject to the fulfilment of targets. 3. The Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Mastercard are not engaged in providing the credit card services as they are the payment settlement platforms through which the transactions undertaken on the card are settled. Therefore, the appellant is promoting its own credit card services and not the services provided by VISA/Mastercard and therefore, the appellant is not providing any services to VISA/Mastercard. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant also refers to the definition of the business auxiliary services provided under Section 65(19) of the Act. She further submits that marketing and promotional activities are carried on by the appellant for the mutual benefit of both the parties i.e. the appellant and the VISA/Mastercard. The appellant would have undertaken the activities of promoting its credit cards services even if the VISA/Mastercard does not provide the assistance. She further submits that the amount received by the appellant from VISA/Mastercard will not be exigible to service tax. For this submission, she relied upon by the following decisions: M/s. Roshan Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, CGST, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Final Order No. 50781/2022 (Tri.-Del.) M/s. Anand Motor Agen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elor Mittal Stainless (1) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Service Tax Mumbai-ll, 2023-TIOL-469-CESTAT-MUM-LB CCE&ST, Delhi v. Glaxo SmithKline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Final Order No. 60528/2023 dated 20.10.2023 (Tri. - Chan.) The Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-VI Commissionerate v. M/s. Α.Τ.Ε. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 2018 (8) G. S. T. L. 123 (Bom.) The Commissioner Service Tax-VII v. M/s. Wartsila India Ltd., 2019 (24) G. S. T. L. 547 (Bom.) The Commissioner Service Tax-VII v. M/s. Blue Star Ltd., 2018-TIOL-1976-HC- MUM-ST Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Deihi III, Division-XIV & Anr., 2018 (8) G. S. T. L. 32 (Del.) 8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the services provided by the appellant to VISA/Mastercard has been held to be export of services by the Tribunal in the appellant's own case of SBI Cards and Payment services Pvt Ltd. CST Delhi, Final Order No. ST/A/58115/2017-CU [DB] dated 28.11.2017. She further submits that the Department has not filed any appeal against the said order of the Tribunal and has accepted the same; she also submits that it is a settled law that the department cannot take....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 of the show case notice itself. Even the Commissioner in his order while admitting this aspect of agreement, however, held that these services were actually consumed and utilized in India. We are not in agreement with such conclusion. Admiltedly, the other parties to the agreement with the appellants have received the services. The Service Tax being destination based consumption tax, the present case will cover the requirements for export of services. 5. In this connection, we refer to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Verizon Communication India Pvt Ltd. supra). The High Court observed as below 51. In the considered vi....