9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oup companies located outside India, and is registered with the Service Tax Department, under the category of Business Auxiliary Services, Business Support Services, Market Research Agency Services etc. Appellant entered into Service Agreement dated 23.05.2008 with Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse, Switzerland (hereinafter used as 'LD Switzerland' for short), which is engaged, inter alia, in the business of processing, trading and merchandising of various sugars and imports certain sugar and coffee from India. In terms of the Agreement, the appellant provided various services relating to liaising and facilitating the export of coffee and sugar required by LD Switzerland from India, including: (a) Services related to Execution: Assistance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst which the Appellant filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed by the Impugned Order dated 26.10.2012 and the Order-in-Original was upheld. 5. The main basis of the Impugned Order is that the beneficiaries of the services are in India and the services have not been provided to the recipient outside India and further, no portion of the service has been performed outside India. Accordingly, it is concluded in the impugned order that the services have not been 'used' outside India. 6. With the above back ground, heard Shri Manish Saharan, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri D. Singh, ld. DR for the Revenue. 7. The main arguments of the appellant are that:- (a) It is an admitted position that the natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order No. 50553/2017 dated 24.01.2017 in appeal No. ST/55666/2013-SM. (d) Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, New Delhi - 2014(36) STR 766 (Tri-Del) (e) Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited vs. CCE, Pune - 2013 (31) STR-738 (Tri.). 8. Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the impugned order. 9. The appellant has undertaken services on behalf of the principal. The consideration for the said services have been received from principal in convertible foreign exchange. In the impugned order, Revenue has taken the view that that the services are rendered in India and hence, they have not been provided to a recipient outside India. Accordingly, it has been concluded that the service have not been used outside India. I find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
