2024 (12) TMI 1142 - AT - Service Tax

Exclusions made by the Department for the purpose of arriving at the export turnover on the services in terms of N/N. 05/2006-CE(NT) dt.14.03.2006, as amended by N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) dt.18.06.2012 - whether certain exclusions made by the original sanctioning authority for calculating export turnover of services are correct or otherwise? - HELD THAT - These services are intermediary services, viz., outbound call centre services and reimbursement in the nature of foreign exchange received towards services provided to foreign personnel who visit India. It is also noted that against the said exclusion of services for computing the export turnover, the appellant had come before this Bench in appeal and this Bench 2024 (1) TMI 887 - CESTAT HYDERABAD has already decided the issue and held that ' it is clearly established that there is connection between the visits of the foreign customers and the backoffice support services provided by the appellant, in terms of the subcontracting arrangement, these expenses should qualify as export turnover and be allowed the benefit of export without payment of taxes since the same would be covered in terms of Rule 3 of the POPS, which says that the place of provision of service, would be the location of the recipient, in this case, HGRL, UK.' The matter can be remanded back to the Original Sanctioning Authority - all these appeals are disposed of by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Whether certain exclusions made by the original sanctioning authority for calculating 'export turnover of services' are correct or not.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with appeals concerning exclusions made by the Department for determining the 'export turnover on the services' under specific notifications. The appellant argued that services related to contact center services and credit/debit card operations should not be classified as intermediary services and excluded from export turnover. Additionally, they contended that reimbursement in foreign exchange for services provided to foreign personnel visiting India should be included in export turnover. The appellant referred to a previous order by the same Bench which held that such receipts in foreign exchange qualify for inclusion in export turnover. The appellant requested the appeals to be sent back to the Original Authority for reworking refund claims based on the previous order.

The Department was in the process of engaging Special Counsel for the appeals, but there were delays in appointing one. The Bench decided not to wait for the Special Counsel and asked the learned Authorized Representatives to present the case's facts. The Authorized Representative reiterated the Original Sanctioning Authority's calculations for refund entitlement, claiming the order was correct.

After hearing both sides and examining the documents, the Bench noted that the core issue in all appeals was the correctness of the exclusions made by the original sanctioning authority for calculating 'export turnover of services.' The services in question were outbound call center services and reimbursement in foreign exchange for services to foreign personnel visiting India. The Bench referred to a previous Final Order where it was held that the services should not be excluded from export turnover. Therefore, the Bench decided to remand the appeals back to the Original Sanctioning Authority to make necessary corrections based on the previous Final Order, clarifying that no additional refund payment would be made as a result of this exercise.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issue of exclusions made by the original sanctioning authority for calculating export turnover of services. The Bench referred to a previous order where it was held that the excluded services should be included in export turnover. The appeals were disposed of by remanding them back to the Original Sanctioning Authority for necessary corrections based on the previous Final Order, without any additional refund payment.