2018 (11) TMI 183 - HC - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - export of service - basis of claiming the refund of service tax was that the respondents services being Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) and not repairs and maintenance which services had been exported - Export of Services Rules 2005. Held that - Issue stands decided in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S. RELIANCE MONEY EXPRESS LTD. 2017 (10) TMI 853 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that Export of Service has been clearly held to be applicable where the benefit of service has accrued outside India. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding refund under the Export of Services Rules, 2005.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the entitlement to a refund under the Export of Services Rules, 2005. The respondents provided Business Auxiliary Services to companies in China and Hong Kong, mistakenly paid service tax, and claimed a refund for the period January 2010 to June 2012. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, stating that services were not exported as they were provided in India. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) agreed that the services were business auxiliary services but still rejected the refund claim. The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal, citing a precedent decision. The appellant challenged this citing a pending challenge to the precedent decision in another High Court.

The High Court found that the issue raised by the Revenue was already settled by previous decisions. The Court referred to Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. M/s. Reliance Money Express Ltd. and held that since the issue was already decided in favor of the respondents in previous cases, no substantial question of law arose. The Court dismissed the appeal, citing that the issue was already concluded by previous decisions and hence not entertained.