9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 256 - AT - Service Tax100% EOU - Levy of service tax - export of services - Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service - Technical Testing and Analysis Service - bundled pre-production services - Rule 3 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 (POP) - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VERSUS BA RESEARCH INDIA LTD. 2009 (11) TMI 213 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD where it was held that the said services came under rule 3(1)(2) of the Rules. It is very much clear that the performance of the service is not complete until the testing and analysis report is delivered to its client. In the present case, when such reports were delivered to the clients outside India it amounts to taxable service partly performed outside India. The performance of testing and analyzing has no value unless and until it is delivered to its client and the service is to be completed when such report is delivered to its client. Thus, delivery of report to its client is an essential part of the service, report was delivered outside India and same was used outside India. This is not the disputed fact. We hold that the respondent satisfied the conditions of rule 3(2) and accordingly, the respondents are eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 11 /2007-ST, dated 1-3-2007. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Classification of services rendered by the appellant prior to 1.7.2012. 2. Applicability of Rule 3 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 (POP). 3. Eligibility for exemption under Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 ST. 4. Concept of Bundled Services under Section 66F of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. Place of provision of service under Rule 3 of the POP Rules. 6. Pre-production services and export of service. 7. Legal precedents supporting appellant's case. Issue 1: Classification of services rendered by the appellant prior to 1.7.2012. The Revenue classified stability studies and technical testing and analysis of new drugs under taxable categories. The Department issued a show-cause notice seeking service tax on these services and bundled pre-production services. The Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2015 confirmed the tax, leading to the appeal. Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 3 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 (POP). The appellant argued that services were covered by Rule 3 of POP Rules, as the place of provision was outside India. They highlighted agreements showing responsibility for raw materials and lack of physical supply. The appellant contended that Rule 4(a) of POP Rules was inapplicable. Issue 3: Eligibility for exemption under Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 ST. The appellant claimed exemption under Sl. No.7 of the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 ST, as they conducted clinical trials. They argued that this exemption issue was not raised in the show-cause notice, rendering the Order-in-Original beyond its scope. Issue 4: Concept of Bundled Services under Section 66F of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant asserted that all pre-production services were classifiable under "Scientific and Industrial Consultancy Services," precluding the invocation of Bundled Services concept. They cited legal clarifications and argued that services were deemed complete only upon exporting reports. Issue 5: Place of provision of service under Rule 3 of the POP Rules. The appellant emphasized that services were rendered in India but used outside India, constituting an export of service. They argued that the benefit of service should accrue outside India, citing Circular No.141/10/2011-TRU. The appellant highlighted the Department's contradictory views on raw material procurement. Issue 6: Pre-production services and export of service. The appellant referenced legal precedents like B.A. Research India Ltd. and CESTAT decisions in their favor. They contended that the service was not taxable as it was exported outside India, following the delivery of reports to clients abroad. Issue 7: Legal precedents supporting appellant's case. The Tribunal's previous decisions and Departmental orders favored the appellant's stance on export of services. The Bench found the impugned order unsustainable, citing precedents and decisions upholding the appellant's position. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant based on legal interpretations, contractual agreements, and precedents supporting the export of services and exemption eligibility.
|
