9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndisputed 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. - original sanctioning authority has rightly sanctioned the refund claim holding that the services provided by the appellant is export of services. Hence the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable and the same is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - APPEAL NO: ST/88567/2014 - Order no. A/1076/15/SMB - Dated:- 16-4-2015 - Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for the appellant Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) for the respondent JUDGEMENT The appeal is directed against Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g other non-binding advisory services as may be agreed upon from time to time. 3. The service-recipient, M/s. Apollo Management VII L.P. used the advice received from the appellant in further advising to their customers in market in making investments in India. Since the appellant is providing the aforesaid services to Apollo Management, who is located in US, the services are covered under export of services and accordingly the appellant has filed refund claims in respect of input services under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for an amount of ₹ 27,26,892/-. After raising some queries by the sanctioning authority, the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim of ₹ 4,42,900/-. However, sanctioned an amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... final order No. 21741/2014 dated 24/09/2014. He submits that the fact of the said judgment is absolutely identical to the present case. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai vs. Greater Pacific Capital Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-1726-CESTAT-MUM. He also referred to Boards Circular No. 111/5/2009-S.T. dated 24/02/2009 and Circular No. 141/10/2011-TRU dated 13/05/2011. He also relied on the judgment in the case 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hows, the services provided by the appellant is consumed by M/s. Apollo Management , US for providing his output services to US based companies. Under these facts there is no dispute that the services provided by the appellant are indeed used and consumed by M/s. Apollo Management of US. Therefore, the services are used outside India. 6.1. On the identical 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 Holdings Inc. The refund claim has been denied on the ground that the services have been entirely utiliz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, we consider that the appellant has made out a case for eligibility for refund. Therefore appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (ii) Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai vs. Greater Pacific Capital Pvt. Ltd. 9. In this case the issue is to be decided whether the services provided by the respondent to GPC located outside India qualifies as export of service as 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 disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it is a case of export of service. In the circumstance, the respondent is entitled for the refund claim. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld. As the appeals filed by the Revenue deserves no merit are therefore, dismissed. Stay application is also disposed of in the above terms. 6.2. In view of the above judgments, it is found that the 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 as provided under the Export of Service Rules. Therefore, following the ratio of the above judgments and couple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
