9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER PER. B. RAVICHANDRAN :- The appellant is aggrieved from order dated 16/11/2011 of Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi II. The brief facts leading to the present appeal is that the appellants are engaged in business of facilitating sale of coal for a UAE based company. They have arranged a client in Singapore for sale of coal by the UAE company. For this s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jammu and Kashmir) are covered under the Service Tax net. In this case, the services have been performed in Singapore, hence there is no question of applicability of the Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994. Thus the services performed were not taxable and hence, there is no question of applicability of the Export of Service Rules, 2005, which are in the form of an exemption notification. For the sak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid by them on either of the grounds, namely, that the amount paid by them is not at all payable as the services rendered by them is not taxable in terms of Finance Act, 1994 or even taxable the same is exported out of India, in this case the service recipient is in UAE. He further submitted that while the Original Authority rejected their claim on various grounds, the first Appellate Authority ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le and, hence, there is no question of their export. There is no appeal by the Revenue against the impugned order. The admitted fact is that there is no taxable service rendered by the appellant in the taxable territory of India. The services, if any, rendered by the appellant were consumed by the company in UAE. The tax paid by the appellant is apparently not attributable to any taxable activity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
