9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1244 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - rejection on the ground that the services were performed in India and the case is not covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Paul Merchants v. CCE 2012 (12) TMI 424 - CESTAT, DELHI (LB) - Held that - the issue is no longer res integra and is covered in favour of the appellants by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Simpra Agencies v. CCE 2014 (6) TMI 354 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where following CESTAT judgments in the case of Paul Merchants Ltd., it was inter alia held that even providing after sale warranty service on behalf of the foreign client would be covered under the scope of export of service when the payment was received in convertible foreign exchange - matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority to consider the appellant s refund claim - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Refund claim disallowance based on service location, applicability of export of service rules, interpretation of previous tribunal judgments.
In the present case, the appeal was filed against the disallowance of the appellant's refund claim amounting to Rs. 28,76,109 on the grounds that the services provided were performed in India, as per the contract with M/s. MHI Engine System Asia PTE Ltd., Singapore. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the effective use and enjoyment of the services took place in India, leading to the disallowance. However, the Tribunal noted that the issue has been previously addressed in the case of Simpra Agencies v. CCE, where it was established that providing after-sale warranty service on behalf of a foreign client, with payment received in convertible foreign exchange, falls under the scope of export of service. This position was supported by earlier judgments in the cases of Paul Merchants Ltd. and Gap International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the impugned order disallowing the refund claim was not sustainable in light of the aforementioned judgments. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority to reconsider the refund claim in accordance with the judgment in the case of Simpra Agencies.
|
