9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 646 - AT - Service TaxScope of the term Export - Export of business auxiliary service Location of the consumer - Since the destination of the goods and services of the foreign entities was within the Indian territory, Revenue assumed that the benefits under the Export of Services Rules, 2005 was unavailable and the adjudication order ensued. Held that - An identical issue was decided by the full Bench of this Tribunal in Paul Merchants Ltd. vs. CCE 2012 (12) TMI 424 - CESTAT, DELHI (LB) which concluded that the fact that the goods and services of the foreign entities are disbursed in India would not render dis-apply the beneficient provisions of the Export of Services Rules, 2005. - Prima facie issue covered in favour of assessee - stay granted.
Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of proceedings post adjudication order. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of all further proceedings following an adjudication order by the Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi. The appellant was assessed with service tax liability, demand for wrong availment of cenvat credit, interest, and penalty. The appellant provided Business Auxiliary Service to overseas entities and received foreign exchange as remuneration for promoting goods and services in India. The Revenue contended that benefits under the Export of Services Rules, 2005 were unavailable due to the destination of goods and services within India, leading to the adjudication order. An important reference in the judgment is made to a full Bench decision in Paul Merchants Ltd. vs. CCE - 2013 (29) STR 257 (Tri. Del.), which concluded that the disbursement of goods and services in India by foreign entities does not disqualify the applicability of Export of Services Rules, 2005. The Tribunal found that the issue in the present case is similar to the one decided in Paul Merchants, indicating a favorable stance towards the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal granted full waiver of pre-deposit and stayed all further proceedings as per the impugned order pending the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant based on the precedent set by the decision in Paul Merchants, granting the requested waiver of pre-deposit and stay of proceedings post the adjudication order. The application was ordered accordingly, providing relief to the appellant during the appeal process.
|
