9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited to procurement of orders which are sent to the principal entity abroad. Thereafter the role of the respondent ends in as much he is nowhere connected with the actual sale of the goods by the entity abroad to the customers in India. Rule 3(1)(iii)of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 comes into picture as the service concerned is Business Auxiliary Service and the export is deemed to have taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. Georg Fischer Piping Systems P. Ltd., Switzerland, who manufactures industrial pipes. The respondent provided service to the entity abroad by way of procuring orders from customers in India. The entity abroad was selling the pipes to customers in India on the basis of these orders. The respondent filed a rebate claim of tax paid on input services, under Rule 5 of the Export of Service Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also states that the issue has not been considered extensively by CESTAT in the case of Microsoft Corpn. (I) P. Ltd. Ld. AR also argued that the rebate is partly hit by limitation of time because the period involved is August 2007 to March 2008 whereas the rebate claim was filed on 19.02.2009. 5. The ld. counsel appearing for the respondent submitted copies of invoices which indicate that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s received in foreign exchange in India. These two conditions being satisfied, I hold the service to be export of service. Reliance is placed on the case of Microsoft Corpn. (I) P. Ltd. 2014 (36) STR 766 (Tri-Del) as well as the case of Paul Merchant 2013 (29) STR 257 (T-Del). 8. As far as the averments of ld. AR that the rebate is partly hit by limitation, I find that this issue is neither rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
