9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant : Shri Sujit Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Govind Dixit, Authorized Representative (DR) JUDGEMENT Per. Justice G. Raghuram :- Heard Shri Sujit Ghosh, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Govind Dixit, learned Departmental Representative for the respondent/Revenue. 2. The order dated 25/05/12 passed by the learned Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi confirmed the service tax demand of Rs. 72,43,736/- apart from interest and penalties, for having provided Business Auxiliary Service to an overseas corporate entity UB Office Systems Ltd., a resident entity of Hong Kong (hereinafter UBOS), during April 2005 to September 2009 and October 2009 to September 2010. Proceedings were initiated un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant - AMIL. 4. Revenue initiated proceedings on an allegation that AMIL provided Business Auxiliary Service to the overseas entity and was liable to remit service tax. The appellant does not contest the classification of the service provided as being BAS. Before the Adjudicating Authority AMIL contended that Business Auxiliary Service provided to UBOS amounts to export of service within the ambit of Export of Service Rules, 2005, since from the nature of the services provided, these were utilized by the recipient outside India; that it received consideration in convertible foreign exchange; and is therefore, excluded from exigibility of the tax, under provisions of the 2005 Rules. 5. The above defence was negated by the Adjudicating A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal pronounces a verdict after consideration of the relevant legal environment, the executive branch and an adjudicator at a lower level in the hierarchy is bound by such verdict, subject only to remedies within the judicial branch or appropriate and constitutionally permitted legislative curatives. We are informed that Revenue has preferred an appeal against Paul Merchants Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh (supra) and the same is under the consideration before the Punjab Haryana High Court. In the circumstances, Revenue cannot be heard to contend that there are errors in the declaration of law by the Larger Bench. The contention on behalf of the Revenue is therefore fundamentally mis-conceived and rejected out of hand. 9. The transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
