9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them. On this ground alone, the stand taken by the lower Authorities in the impugned order is liable to be set aside - matter is remanded back to the Original Authority who will examine the claim for sanction - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeals No. 1840-1841 of 2012 - Final Order No. 50786-50787/2017 - Dated:- 13-2-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri V. Laxmikumaran and Rachit Jain, Advocates for the appellant. Ms. Neha Garg, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent. ORDER These are two appeals against the common impugned order dated 09/04/2012 of Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi II. The brief facts of the case are that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmation analysis and control activities, bank reconciliation by way of matching account information, processing of transaction data relating to credit card, reconciliation of inter-company payables/receivables, compilation and maintenance of general ledgers for ready excess by the client etc. They have provided call centre services to foreign affiliates during the relevant period. They have set up STPI unit with the approval of the Competent Authority for this purpose. In the call centre operations they mainly undertake to attend to the telephone calls made by the customers of overseas affiliates who are located outside India. This telephone calls are mainly with reference to credit card transaction, banking and financial transaction, trave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Business Support Service/ Business Auxiliary Service provided by the appellant during the relevant period qualify as export of service. All these were delivered and consumed outside India. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd. vs. CST, New Delhi reported in 2014 (36) S.T.R. 766 (Tri. Del.), B A Call Centre India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Gurgaon reported in 2016 TIOL 2322 CESTAT DEL . and Paul Merchants Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2013 (29) S.T.R. 257 (Tri. Del.) . Further reference was also made to the circulars dated 24/02/2009 and 13/05/2011 issued by the Board. 5. The learned Counsel submitted that on identical set of facts on the same services, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted their claim only on the ground that they could not identify the specific classification of services rendered by the appellant to the foreign affiliates and as such these services were held as nontaxable. We note that the agreement and the documents submitted by the appellant makes it clear regarding the scope of services rendered by the appellant. We have also, briefly, noted the nature of service earlier in this order. Admittedly, the appellants are providing what is generally called as call centre service or BPO service to their foreign affiliates. On a perusal of the agreement entered into by the appellant with the service recipient, we note the nature of service cannot be disputed. We note that the lower Authorities have repeat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Revenue cannot take different approach on the same set of facts during different periods. 8. In view of the above facts and discussion, we find that the impugned order cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Original Authority who will examine the claim for sanction in line with the observations made above. The appellant shall be provided adequate opportunity to present their case. Since, the claims were relating to period April 2006 onwards, the Original Authority shall take efforts to dispose of the claims at the earliest. With these observations the appeals are allowed by way of remand. (Order pronounced in open court on 13/02/2017.) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
