TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions of the Finance Act, 1994, as tabulated below: - Sl. No. SCN/SOD No. & Date Period of Dispute Order-in- Original No. & Date Service Tax Demand (Rs.) Interest Penalty 1 SOD No. 180/2013 dated 24.05.2013 April 2011 - March 2012 OIO No. 16- 19/2015-16 dated 14.08.2015 1,60,38,512/- Confirmed under Section 75 Imposed under Section 76 2 SOD No. 95/2014 dated 30.04.2014 April 2012 - June 2012 OIO No. 16- 19/2015-16 dated 14.08.2015 56,36,271/- Confirmed under Section 75 Imposed under Section 76 3 SCN No. 221/2014 dated 09.09.2014 July 2012 - March 2013 OIO No. 16- 19/2015-16 dated 14.08.2015 2,40,02,166/- Confirmed under Section 75 Imposed under Section 76 4 SOD No. 44/2015 dated 23.04.2015 April 2013 - September 2014 OIO No. 16- 19/2015-16 dated 14.08.2015 2,33,76,872/- Confirmed under Section 75 Imposed under Section 76 5 SOD No. 04/2017 dated 10.10.2017 October 2014 - June 2017 OIO No. 08/2018 dated 27.02.2018 6,40,95,934/- Confirmed under Section 75 Imposed under Section 76 Total 13,31,49,755/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atutory definition mandates recording of a programme, event or function. The Appellant admittedly does not record any programme, event or function. Its activities are confined to post-production processing of already recorded digital image data, without any audio component. Consequently, the essential ingredients of the taxable service are absent. 4.3 That this issue stands conclusively settled in favour of the Appellant by a series of decisions of Chennai Tribunal in the Appellant's own case, namely: - i. Prasad Corporation Ltd. v. CST, Chennai - 2018 (11) GSTL 104 (Tri.-Chennai) ii. Prasad Corporation Ltd. v. CGST & CEx., Chennai - 2019 (1) TMI 506 iii. Prasad Corporation Ltd. v. CST - 2021 (1) TMI 384 Revenue appeals against the said orders were either dismissed or withdrawn. Hence, the issue is no longer res integra, and judicial discipline mandates that the demands for this period be set aside. 4.4 That without prejudice, the Appellant submits that identical services rendered to domestic customers were accepted by the Department as taxable under IT-enabled services, and service tax was duly discharged. The Department cannot adopt inconsisten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is no suppression, fraud or intent to evade tax. Hence, penalties under Sections 76/77 and interest under Section 75 are not sustainable, and Section 80 (as applicable) warrants waiver of penalty. 4.11 The Ld. Advocate has further submitted that in view of the settled legal position, binding precedents and undisputed facts, the impugned Orders-in-Original be set aside in toto and the appeals be allowed with consequential relief. 5.1 The Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. Sanjay Kakkar have firstly reiterated the findings in the impugned orders. He has further submitted that: - 5.2 The services involve imparting special effects and post-production activity covered under the inclusive definition of Video Tape Production Services and the entire activity is performed in India; 5.3 Digital data constitute "goods" following the judgment in Tata Consultancy Services v. State of A.P[2004 TMI 4142 SC] therefore, Rule 4 of the Place of Provision Rules squarely applies; 5.4 The conditions of Rule 6A of ST Rules are not satisfied and the services are taxable in India. 5.5 He has further contended that the activities undertaken by the Appellant do not amount to manufacture, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dentical in both the impugned orders, albeit examined under two different statutory regimes, we proceed to analyse the issues arising in these appeals issue wise and question-wise, keeping in view the applicable legal framework for the respective periods. Question No. 1 Whether the activities carried out by the Appellant, namely Computer Graphics, Digital Restoration and Reverse Telecine, are classifiable as "Video Tape Production Service" under Section 65(105)(zi) read with Section 65(120) of the Finance Act, 1994, for the period prior to 01.07.2012? 9.1 Appellant submits that its activities are postproduction digital services involving manipulation and restoration of image data using specialized software and high-end computer systems. 9.2 It was contended that the Appellant does not record any programme, event or function; No audio content is handled; The services are rendered on pre-existing cinematographic footage, supplied in digital form by its clients. 9.3 It is argued that the statutory definition of "Video Tape Production" under Section 65(120) of FA 1994 is restrictive, using the word "means", and covers only: Recording of programmes/events/functions, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the settled view. Judicial discipline requires us to follow coordinate Bench decisions, particularly when affirmed by higher forums. 9.14 As such, we hold that the services rendered by the Appellant do not fall under "Video Tape Production Service" for the period prior to 01.07.2012. Thus, Question No. 1 is answered in favour of the Appellant. Question No. 2 Whether the services rendered by the Appellant to foreign clients qualify as "export of service" under the Export of Services Rules, 2005 (prior to 01.07.2012)? 10.1 The Appellant submits that its services fall under Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005, being services used in relation to commerce or industry. 10.2 It is contended that: The service recipients are located outside India; Consideration is received in convertible foreign exchange and the benefit of service accrues to foreign clients. 10.3 It is argued that location of use and consumption, not physical performance, is determinative. 10.4 The Department contended that: The entire activity is performed in India; Under Rule 3(1)(ii), performance outside India is mandatory. 10.5 The Tribunal has already held in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vices v. State of A.P 2004(11) TMI 11 (SC) LB. to argue that intangible data embedded in physical media constitutes goods. 12.3 It was argued that the services are performed in India and hence taxable in India. 13.1 We have carefully examined the rival submissions. Rule 4(a) of the POPS Rules applies only where services are provided in respect of goods which are required to be made physically available to the service provider. 13.2 The decisive test is whether physical possession of goods is essential for rendering the service. In the present case, the services are rendered on intangible digital data, and not on the physical medium. 13.3 The admitted fact that the same services are rendered even when data is transmitted electronically completely negates the applicability of Rule 4. 13.4 We are of the view that the reliance placed on Tata Consultancy Services (supra) is misplaced as contended by the appellant. That decision dealt with sale of software as goods, where the physical medium itself was the subject of transaction. In the present case, the physical media is merely incidental and not the subject matter of service. Therefore the said decision is distinguishabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a. 14.7 Consequently, Rule 6A(1)(d) stands satisfied and the services provided qualify as export of services. 14.8 We have examined the Appellant's reliance on the following decisions: - i. Commissioner of Service Tax v. Prime Focus Ltd. - 2023 (71) GSTL 402 (Tri.-Mumbai), affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2023 (385) ELT 806 (SC) ii. Futureworks Media Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST - 2024 (6) TMI 307 (CESTAT Mumbai) iii. Prasad Corporation Ltd. v. CST, Chennai - 2018 (11) GSTL 104 (Tri.-Chennai) iv. Prasad Corporation Ltd. v. CGST & CEx. - 2019 (1) TMI 506 (CESTAT Chennai) v. Prasad Corporation Ltd. v. CST - 2021 (1) TMI 384 (CESTAT Chennai) 14.9 We have taken note of guidelines in CBEC Education Guide dated 20.06.2012 and Circular No. 209/1/2018-ST dated 04.05.2018, which clarify that services involving digital processing of data or software are governed by Rule 3 of the POPS Rules. 14.10 However, the impugned orders contend that the services are performed entirely in India and hence the place of provision is within India that since the digital data is received on physical media such as LTO tapes or hard disks, the good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise issue has been conclusively settled by the Tribunal in Prime Focus Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that post-production and digital processing services rendered to overseas clients constitute export of service. The said decision has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thereby attaining finality. 14.22 The same view has been consistently followed in Futureworks Media Ltd. (supra) and in the Appellant's own earlier cases. Judicial discipline mandates that we follow these binding precedents. 14.23 Once the place of provision is held to be outside India, all the conditions of Rule 6A(1) stand fulfilled. Accordingly, the services rendered by the Appellant post-01.07.2012 qualify as export of service. 14.24 We hold that the services rendered by the Appellant during the period post-01.07.2012 satisfy all the conditions prescribed under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, and therefore qualify as export of service. 14.25 Consequently, no service tax is leviable on such services under the Finance Act, 1994. Issue (iv) Whether the demands of service tax along with interest and penalties confirmed under the impugned Orders-in-Original are sustainable in ....