9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the place of performance. It is also clarified that the export of service may take place even when all the relevant activities takes place in India so long as the benefits of these services accrued outside India - prima facie, there is no dispute that the benefit of this service accrued to Decathalon SA, France. In view of that, prima facie, we find that the applicant made out a strong case for waiver of predeposit of entire dues. - stay granted. - ST/40295/2013-DB - - - Dated:- 19-5-2014 - P K Das And R Periasami, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Jatin Christopher, CA For the Respondent : Mr M Ram Mohan Rao, DC (AR) PER : P K Das The applicant has filed this application for waiver of predeposit of tax of ₹ 9,38,46,22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (b) Gap International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax (c) Alpine Modular Interiors (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax 4. On the other hand, the learned AR on behalf of Revenue drew the attention of the Bench the relevant portion of the agreement. It is contended that even the agreement is between the principal M/s. Decathalon SA France and the applicant as the agent, but the supplier is the beneficiary which is clearly shown in the agreement. It is also submitted that the entire agreement would show that the supplier performed the contracts. It is also submitted that the supplier sold the goods to third parties other than Decathalon SA, France. He submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the applicant submits that the invoices were issued in the name of Decathalon SA, France and its group companies. We find that the agreement as referred by the learned AR on behalf of Revenue is in between the Decathalon SA, France and the applicant as a principal and agent. Hence, prima facie, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned AR that the supplier performed the agreement. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Gap International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), on identical situation, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. We have also noticed that the Board Circular dated 24.2.2009 had categorically clarified that in respect of the clause (III) of Rule 3(1) of Export of Service Rules, the relevant fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
