2015 (6) TMI 122 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Export of services or not - providing advisory services to M/s. AMP Capital (Australia) - Held that - Services were carried out in India but the recipient is outside India and, therefore, the services provided by Indian entity deemed to be used by the person located outside India and, therefore, it satisfies the terms used outside India provided under the Export of Service Rules. Therefore, following the ratio of the above judgments it is absolutely undisputed that the appellant has provided the services from India and the same was used outside India. Accordingly it qualifies as export of services and refund is admissible. - appellant is rightly entitled for the refund holding that the services provided by the appellant is export of services. Hence the impugned orders are not sustainable and the same is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection for services provided to a foreign entity under 'export of services' category.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals against the rejection of refund claims by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)-IV, Mumbai Zone - I. The appellant, a service provider registered under 'Banking and Other Financial Services' and 'Market Research Agency Services', entered into a Business Service Agreement with an Australian entity, M/s. AMP Capital Australia. The appellant provided advisory services to the Australian entity, which used the advice for investments in India. The appellant filed refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for services provided to the Australian entity. The adjudicating authority rejected one refund claim but sanctioned others. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of one claim but rejected the sanction of others, leading to the current appeal.

The main issue was whether the services provided by the appellant to the Australian entity qualified as 'export of service' and thus eligible for a refund. The appellant argued that since the recipient was located in Australia and the services were used outside India, they should be considered as 'export of services'. The appellant cited relevant judgments, including Amba Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Greater Pacific Capital Pvt. Ltd., to support their claim that services provided from India but used outside India qualify as exports. The Revenue, represented by the Asstt. Commissioner, reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

The Tribunal, considering the facts and arguments presented, found that the services provided by the appellant to the Australian entity were indeed used and consumed outside India. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that services rendered from India but utilized by a foreign entity outside India qualify as 'export of services'. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the refund, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the services provided to the Australian entity constituted 'export of services' as they were utilized outside India. The judgment emphasized the importance of the recipient's location in determining the eligibility for a refund claim under the 'export of services' category, in line with established legal precedents.