9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08/2010 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Division I, Mumbai rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 6,03,801/- and rejected the orders-in-original Nos. DMD/R-149/2011 dated 30/05/2011; DMD/R-168/2011 dated 21/06/2011 and DMD/R-200/2011 dated 29/06/2011 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Division I, Mumbai sanctioning refund claim of Rs. 3,88,025/-, Rs. 3,99,388/- and Rs. 2,60,979/- respectively. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant, M/s. AMP Capital Advisors India Pvt. Ltd., are registered with the Service Tax department under the category of 'Banking and Other Financial Services' and 'Market Research Agency Services'. The appellant entered into a Business Service Agreement dated 28/03/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-, Rs/ 3,88,025/-; Rs. 3,99,388/- and Rs. 2,60,979/-. After following due process of law, the adjudicating authority, in the respective orders-in-originals rejected the refund claim of Rs. 6,03,801/- and sanctioned the remaining refund claims filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said orders, appellant filed an appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals), by the impugned orders upheld the order-in-original dated 17/08/2010 and rejected the orders-in-original dated 30/05/2011; 21/06/2011 and 29/06/2011 passed by the Deputy/Asstt. Commissioner, Division I, Service Tax - I, Mumbai Commissionerate. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before me. 4. Shri Niren Shethia, learned Chartered Accountant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 13/05/2011. He also relied upon the judgment of Bain Capital Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai - I final order No. A/1665-1669/14/CSTB/C-I. 5. Shri A.B. Kulgod, learned Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. The issue to be decided by me in this case is whether the services provided by the appellant, M/s. AMP India Capital Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. AMP Capital (Australia) is 'export of service' or otherwise and consequently eligibility to refund. As per the facts, the appellant is providing management consultancy services such as providing reports of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entical set of facts, this Tribunal in the following cases have held as under:- (i) In the case of Amba Research (India) Pvt. Ltd: "3. On going through the records and after considering the submissions of both sides, we find that in this case, the appellant is a subsidiary of M/s. Amba Holding Inc. The refund claim has been denied on the ground that the services have been entirely utilized in India. According to the agreements, we find that the buyer namely M/s. Amba Holdings Inc. is engaged in the business of providing services in investment research, outsourcing of financial analysis and sub-contracting services. It was the submission of the learned Consultant that the services provided by the appellant in the form of studies and submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per Rule 3(1)(iii) read with Rule 4 of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 or not and consequently, whether the respondent is entitled for refund claim or not. 10. It is an admitted fact that the respondent has provided investment advisory service to GPC Management located outside India and does not have any business in India. It is also not in dispute the respondent has received the payment in convertible foreign exchange. Therefore, as per Rule 3(1)(iii) of the above said Rule, the services provided by the respondent not qualifies as export of service as the service provided by the respondent to a service recipient located outside India and are to be used outside India for their benefit. Further, I find that the issue came up before thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 7. In view of my above discussion, I am of the considered view that the appellant is rightly entitled for the refund holding that the services provided by the appellant is export of services. Hence the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
