Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ii) indexing of dissertation records (long piece of writing) associated with its PsycINFO indexing and abstracting workflow project;
b) Innodata USA shall utilise American PSY's Hermes/Apollo system in processing the source materials, which shall be accessed through VPN connection;
c) The deliverables shall be saved in American PSY's Hermes/Apollo system.

The said work has to be undertaken by the Appellant for Innodata USA as per service agreement dated 10.12.2008.

8. The Appellant placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II [2015(37) STR 340 (Tri - Mumbai)], wherein SBI had entered into a contract with M/s Equant Pte. Ltd. for providing Virtual Private Network (VPN) which enabled SBI and its branches to retrieve data from the data centre maintained by the applicants in different countries abroad and demand was made under OIDAR service.

The said decision of this Tribunal was held to be inapplicable to the facts of the present case by the Adjudicating authority on the ground that individual meaning cannot be assigned to what has been written in the statute or under Rule 2(1) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 defining OIDAR services as-

19. We find that the instant case is wholly covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II (supra) wherein SBI had entered into a contract for providing Virtual Private Network (VPN) which enabled SBI and its branches to retrieve data from the data centre maintained by the applicants in different countries abroad and demand was made under OIDAR service. This Tribunal held as under:

"The ownership of data is quite clearly with the SBI foreign offices. Equant have not provided any data for access/retrieval. They have simply enabled the connectivity. They have provided connectivity which enables the FOs to access/ retrieve data online. The responsibility of Equant is to ensure that network VPN functions properly. The commissioner has totally misread the meaning of " services provided in relation to online information and database access or retrieval". Clearly, the service provided has to relate to information access/retrieval. And Equant has to relate to information access/retrieval. And Equant has not provided information and database. The ownership of data is with the FOs. This is a vital fact. The Commissioner's finding that it is not necessary that the original data should emerge or originate from the provider of VPN network is an incorrect reading of section 65(75) and 65(105)(zh)".