The respondent company provided business auxiliary services to principals located outside of India by marketing their products in India. They received payment in foreign exchange for these services. The respondent filed a refund claim for service tax paid, which was initially rejected by the adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim, relying on a CBEC circular. The Revenue appealed. The CESTAT upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, noting that a similar case was decided in the respondent's favor, finding it was a case of export of services as defined in the Export of Services Rules. Therefore, the refund claim was valid and the appeal was dismissed.
The respondent company provided business auxiliary services to principals located outside of India by marketing their products in India. They received payment in foreign exchange for these services. The respondent filed a refund claim for service tax paid, which was initially rejected by the adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim, relying on a CBEC circular. The Revenue appealed. The CESTAT upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, noting that a similar case was decided in the respondent's favor, finding it was a case of export of services as defined in the Export of Services Rules. Therefore, the refund claim was valid and the appeal was dismissed.
The respondent company provided business auxiliary services to principals located outside of India by marketing their products in India. They received payment in foreign exchange for these services. The respondent filed a refund claim for service tax paid, which was initially rejected by the adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim, relying on a CBEC circular. The Revenue appealed. The CESTAT upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, noting that a similar case was decided in the respondent's favor, finding it was a case of export of services as defined in the Export of Services Rules. Therefore, the refund claim was valid and the appeal was dismissed.
The respondent company provided business auxiliary services to principals located outside of India by marketing their products in India. They received payment in foreign exchange for these services. The respondent filed a refund claim for service tax paid, which was initially rejected by the adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim, relying on a CBEC circular. The Revenue appealed. The CESTAT upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, noting that a similar case was decided in the respondent's favor, finding it was a case of export of services as defined in the Export of Services Rules. Therefore, the refund claim was valid and the appeal was dismissed.
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI [COURT NO. II] Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J)
COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-II
Versus
BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE P. LTD.
Final Order No. A/955/2014-WZB/C-IV(SMB), dated 25-4-2014 in Appeal No. ST/384/2011-Mum
Refund - Export of Service - Business Auxiliary Service to principals located
outside India - Assessee engaged for marketing of principals products in India Similar issue considered in Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. [2013 (31) S.T.R. 738 (Tri.Mum.)] - Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held case of Export of Service as per Rule 3 (1)(iii) of Export of Services Rules, 2005 - No infirmity with impugned order Impugned order upheld - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 - Rule 3(1)(iii) of Export of Services Rules, 2005. [para 7]
Appeal dismissed CASE CITED Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. v. Commissioner 2013 (31) S.T.R. 738 (Tribunal) Followed [Para 7] DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 111/5/2009-S.T., dated 24-2-2009............................................... [Para 2] REPRESENTED BY :
Shri S. Dewalvar, Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Appellant.
Shri Prasad Praanjape, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order sanctioning the refund claim of the service tax paid by the respondent under Business Auxiliary Service. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is providing Business Auxiliary Service to their principals located outside India by marketing their product in India. It is not in dispute that the remuneration received by the respondent was in foreign exchange. Therefore, the respondent filed refund claim of the service tax paid on these service but the refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the premise that as the goods have been marketed in India therefore, the service has been received in India. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who relying on the CBEC Circular No. 111/05/2009, dated 24-2-2009, allowed their claim. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned AR submits that in this case, although the principals located outside India but all the services have been marketed and consumed in India. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled for the refund claim. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in fact, the recipient of services is located outside India and the service has also been received by him outside India. In these circumstances, it is a case of export as per Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005. Therefore, they are entitled for the refund claim. 6. Considered the submissions made by both the sides. 7. A similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. v. CCE, Pune-III - 2013 (31) S.T.R. 738 wherein it was held that the telecom service provided in India to International in-bound roamers registered with foreign telecom network operator, payment received from impugned foreign telecom operators in convertible foreign exchange, in that set of facts this Tribunal has held that the service have been provided outside India as an export of service. In this case, the respondent is in a better footing than in the case of Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that the service recipient is the foreign telecom service-provider and not the subscriber of the foreign telecom service in India and providing service in India and it is a case of export of service. In the circumstance, I hold that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the case of export of service as per Rule 3(1)(iii) of Export of Services Rules, 2005. In the circumstance, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (Dictated in Court)
