Case Law Details
BCCI Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai)
it is undisputedly admitted that appellants have provided the program feed to the M/s MSM Singapore at the venue of match which is in India and not outside. The programme feed as provided by the appellant, is encrypted and then uplinked by the said M/s MSM/ WSG to the designated transponder in designated satellite. The satellite beams back the uplinked signal, for transmission through cable or network of TV Channels to the individual viewers. In the entire process at no stage the feed, provided by the appellant is routed through any place outside India. Thus service provided by the appellants are provided in India and used in India. The service provided by the appellant is in form of the feed for the live broadcast of match, and not for transfer of media right. The recipient of service carries the said feed to the individual viewers. Transfer of media right is only to exclusively authorize the M/s MSM Singapore or M/s WSG to broadcast the said feed as Official Broadcaster for the IPL. Thus we are not convinced by the argument advanced by the appellant that in para C.8 that location of the person to whom the media rights have been transferred will determine the place where the service has been provided, and since in the present case the person to whom the media rights have been transferred is located in Singapore, the service should be treated as export of service.
Appellants have heavily relied upon the decision of Tribunal in case of Balaji Telefilms Ltd. [2016 (43) STR 98 (T Mum)]. However in the said case the programmes were exported to Hongkong and uplinked from there for beaming back to viewers in India. Thus the said case is distinguishable on facts.
Since prior to amendments made in Rule 3, with effect from 27.02.2010, the requirement of “providing the services from India for use outside India was mandatory and is not satisfied in the present case, we hold that benefit of Export of Services Rules, 2005 will not be available to the appellants.
In the present case the grant of media rights is not the service but the delivery of the feed to the person to whom the media rights have been granted for telecast is the service provided. Since this service feed has been provided by the appellant to the person holding media rights in India the service has been provided in India and all the activities in relation to the consumption of the said feed for broad cast of the match have been performed in India, the claim for the appellants in respect of the said feed as export of Service cannot be agreed to.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
