2014 (12) TMI 420 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - telecommunication service to international roamers - Export of service - Held that - service rendered by the respondent is the telecom service provided to customers of foreign telecom service provider as international inbound roamers while they are in India. Such services, have been held to be services provided to foreign telecom service providers for which consideration has been received in convertible foreign exchange. Therefore, this Tribunal in the order cited supra held them to be export of services in terms of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 following the precedent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Paul Merchant Ltd.- 2012 (12) TMI 424 - CESTAT, DELHI (LB) . Thereafter, the same ratio has been followed by this Tribunal in a series of decisions in GAP International Sourcing (I) Pvt. Ltd vs. Comm of ST- 2014 (3) TMI 696 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , Simpra Agencies - 2014 (6) TMI 354 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , SGS India Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 (5) TMI 105 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Therefore, in the present case also, the transaction is one of export and the appellant is rightly entitled for refund/rebate of the service tax paid in respect of such transactions. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against the Order-in-Appeal sanctioning refunds to the respondent Vodafone India Ltd. based on the provision of telecommunication service to international roamers being considered as export of service.

Analysis:
The judgment involves five appeals filed by the revenue challenging the Order-in-Appeal sanctioning refunds to Vodafone India Ltd. The lower appellate authority had allowed the refunds amounting to Rs. 36,44,18,798 to the respondent based on the Tribunal's decision in the respondent's own case, where it was held that providing telecommunication service to international roamers constitutes export of service. The revenue contended that roaming facility to international roamers in India does not amount to export, but the Tribunal's order in the respondent's case has not been challenged, and no stay has been obtained against it. The revenue's appeal lacked additional grounds besides reiterating those in the appeal memorandum.

The respondent's counsel argued that the Tribunal's interpretation in the respondent's case established that services provided to foreign telecom service customers in India qualify as export of service under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The counsel highlighted that the Tribunal's order had not been admitted for appeal by the High Court, indicating the prevailing legal position. The respondent urged that the lower appellate authority's decision allowing the refund claims was legally sound and requested the revenue's appeals to be dismissed.

Upon thorough consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal affirmed that the services provided by the respondent to foreign telecom service customers in India were deemed export of services under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The Tribunal referenced its prior decisions and held that the transaction in question constituted export, aligning with precedents. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeals and dismissed them. Additionally, due to significant pending refund amounts, the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner was directed to resolve the rebate/refund claims within one month from the date of the order.

This judgment clarifies the legal stance on the export of telecommunication services to international roamers in India, emphasizing the applicability of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The decision reinforces the Tribunal's consistent interpretation across related cases and upholds the lower appellate authority's ruling in favor of the respondent's refund claims.