S. S. GARG :

The present appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Gurugram, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand partially by invoking the extended period of limitation.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant is registered with the Service Tax department for providing taxable services of ‘Information Technology Software Service’ as specified under Section 65(105)(zzzze) of the Finance Act, 1994. Audit of the Appellant’s records was conducted by the department on 09.02.2018 & 28.02.2018 for the period 2012-13 to 2014-15 and certain discrepancies were observed by the audit team. On the basis of those discrepancies, a Show Cause Notice dated 23.08.2018 was issued to the Appellant by invoking the extended period of limitation. The Appellant contested the allegations made in Show Cause Notice and filed detailed reply to all the allegations raised in the Show Cause Notice. After following the due process, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 05.02.2019, confirmed the demands of Rs.44,73,582/- & Rs.49,868/- under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Act and also imposed equal penalties under Section 78 and a penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 77 of the Act, and also appropriated the amount already paid against the said demands. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal, has partially allowed the appeal of the Appellant and confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.40,020/- on exhibition expenses of Rs.2,66,800/- incurred during the FY 2016-17 and also confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.32,52,159/- on the sale of software license to their customers; however, set aside the other demands. Aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal to the extent of confirmation of said demands, the Appellant has filed the present appeal.

3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record.

4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts & the law.

4.1 With regard to the demand of service tax of Rs.40.020/- confirmed on exhibition expenses incurred for the exhibition held in Geneva, Switzerland, the learned Counsel further submits that the Appellate Authority as well as the Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate that no service tax was leviable on expenses incurred for an exhibition held outside the taxable territory and demand of service tax of Rs.40,020/- has wrongly been confirmed. He further submits that the Rule 6 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 clearly provides that provision of service relating to events shall be the place where the event is actually held and therefore, since the event was held in Switzerland, the place of provision of service is outside India and hence, it is outside the levy of service tax in terms of Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submits that the Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that Rule 3 is the default rule while Rule 4 to 12 provides specific provisions for specified services; where the service gets covered under Rule 4 to 12, the provisions mentioned under Rule 4 to 12 shall apply and in all other cases, Rule 3 shall apply.

4.2 With regard to the demand of Rs.32,52,159/- confirmed on the income earned by the Appellant on sale of software license to their customers, the learned Counsel further submits that the both the lower authorities failed to appreciate that the Appellant is a software product company primarily engaged in development of standardized software products catering to the needs of the travel industry. Quadlabs Xchange System is the pre-existing and pre owned software of the Appellant firm. As per the End User Li