9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices under the category of Courier Agency Services . Revenue proceeded against them on the ground that they did not pay Service Tax for the period from 15-3-2005 to 15-6-2005 on international consignments. According to the appellants, the international consignments during the relevant period were exempted under Rule 4 of Export of Services Rules, 2005. The Commissioner held that in the present case the service provider viz. the appellant is in India and the service receiver who hands over the consignment is also in India. In such circumstances there is no question of any export of service as held by the assessee. Taking such a view, he confirmed a demand of Rs. 2,97,10,762/- towards the service tax payable for the said period under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovided in relation to an immovable property of clause (105) of Section 65 of the Act, i. Such taxable services which are provided and used in or in relation to commerce or industry and the recipient of such services are located outside India. ii. Such taxable services which are provided and used other than in or in relation to commerce or industry, if the recipient of the taxable service is located outside India at the time when such services are received. From the above Rules, it is clear that if taxable services specified in Sub Rule (2) of Rule 3 are partly performed outside India, such service shall be deemed to have been performed outside India. Courier Agency is one of the services specified in Rule 3(2) as the said service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant in the light of Rule 3(2). In our view, the clarification dated 3-10-2005 issued by the Ministry with regard to international courier agency is contrary to Rule 3(2) of Export Services Rules, 2005. 4.1. We also note that the Adjudicating Authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 4.5 crores, which is a very savage one, to say the least. The appellant did not discharge the Service Tax liability on a bona fide understanding of the law. In such a case, there is absolutely no justification for imposing penalty, which is equal to twice the duty involved. We also note that with effect from 15-6-2005, Rule 3(2) of Export Services Rules 2005 has been amended by insertion of 2nd proviso, which reads as follows: Provided further that for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
