Principal Commissioner of Central Taxes v. M/S World Space India Pvt Ltd

Order dated 18.07.2019.

¶4The Revenue contends that the marketing and promotional services rendered by the respondent in India could not have been treated as export of service and that the conditions prescribed under Rule 3(2) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 were not satisfied.

¶5Having perused the Impugned orders and the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that no

ground is made out for interference with the order passed by the Tribunal. The grounds urged are substantially a reiteration of the contentions urged before the authorities below. The decision in the case of Commissioner v. M/s. Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., Managing Director Diary No.16887/2015 which is decided on the similar issue, also does not assist the Revenue, having regard to the outcome which is disposed of in favour of the assessee.

¶6No other grounds and substantial questions of law survives for consideration.

¶7Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

BNV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:43397-DB( CEA(No.(5(of(2021( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010115732020( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(13 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026( PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S.G.PANDIT( AND(( THE(HON'BLE(DR.(JUSTICE(K.MANMADHA(RAO( CENTRAL(EXCISE(APPEAL(NO.(5(OF(2021( BETWEEN:(( ( PRINCIPAL,COMMISSIONER,, OF,CENTRAL,TAXES, BANGALORE,NORTH,COMMISSIONERATE, FORMALLY, COMMISSIONER,OF,CENTRAL,EXCISE, CUSTOMS,AND,SERVICE,TAX, BANGALORE,I,,P,B,NO.,5400, C,R,BUILDINGS,,BANGALORE,560,001., …APPELLANT, (BY,SRI,AKASH,B.,SHETTY,,ADVOCATE), AND:( ( M/S,WORLD,SPACE,INDIA,PVT,LTD., ND2 ,FLOOR,,MITHRA,TOWERS, Digitallytisigned 10/4,,KASTURBA,ROAD, by0G BANGALORE,-,560,001,SHREERAKSHA Location:0HI GH KARNATAKA., COURT0OF …RESPONDENT, KARNATAKA (V/O,DATED,22.03.2022,SERVICE,OF,, ,NOTICE,TO,RESPONDENT,IS,H/S), , , THIS, CEA, /, CENTRAL, EXCISE, APPEAL, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION,35G,OF,THE,CENTRAL,EXCISE,ACT,,1944,PRAYING,TO,SET, ASIDE, THE, CESTAT, FINAL, ORDER, NO.20557-20559/2019, DATED, 18/07/2019, VIDE, ANNEXURE-A,, AND, DECIDE, THE, QUESTION, OF, LAW,FRAMED,IN,THE,ABOVE,APPEAL,BY,ALLOWING,THE,APPEAL,IN, THE,INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE,AND,EQUITY.,, , THIS, APPEAL,, COMING, ON, FOR, HEARING,, THIS, DAY,, JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue. 2. This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 assailing the Final Order Nos.20557-20559/2019 dated 18.07.2019 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. Though served, none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is heard on the basis of the record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee was engaged in providing services under the categories of Broadcasting Agency Service and Business Auxiliary Service. Upon scrutiny of its records, Show Cause Notices dated 12.04.2007, 17.04.2008 and 08.09.2008 were issued covering the period from February 2006 to March 2008. By Order-in-Original Nos.34-36/2009 dated 31.07.2009, the adjudicating authority dropped the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.23,07,36,138/- under the category of Business Auxiliary Service by holding that the services rendered by the assessee were covered under Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 and Board Circular No.111/05/2009-ST dated 24.02.2009. The appeals preferred by the Revenue came to be dismissed by the Tribunal under the impugned Final