9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are erroneous. It is well-settled law that a Notification has to be read and interpreted on the basis of the words used therein and it is not permissible to ignore or introduce any word in the language of the Notification. On reading the said clause of the condition of the Notification, it is seen that there is no reference therein to the orders procured by the wholly owned subsidiaries, acting as commission agents, from a foreign land. Admittedly in the present case the appellant has not exported the goods to its own wholly owned subsidiaries or overseas joint ventures. The appellant has paid only commission to its foreign based commission agents, who happened to be their own subsidiary company and has not made any exports to them - th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... footwear and parts of footwear falling under chapter 64 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant is also registered with the Service Tax department under the category of Transport of Goods by Road Services and Business Auxiliary Services . 2. For the purposes of exports and to procure the export order the appellant has established four fully owned subsidiaries in foreign countries. The said subsidiaries of the appellant are working as over-seas commission agents and are procuring export orders for the appellant. Inasmuch as the appellant is availing the said commission agent services from the companies located outside India, they are liable to pay Service Tax in respect of the commission paid to them, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cipation in an overseas joint venture or wholly owned subsidiary. 4) The exporter shall submit with the half yearly return after certification of the same as specified in clause (g) of the proviso (i)The original documents showing actual payment of commission to the commission agent; and (ii)a copy of the agreement or contract entered into between the commission agent located outside India and the exporter in relation to sale of export goods, outside India: The dispute relates to condition 3 of the Notification, which is to the effect that such exemption shall not be available on the export of the goods if export is made by an Indian partner in a company with equity participation in a overseas joint v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elates to the exports made by an Indian partner to the overseas joint venture companies or wholly owned subsidiaries, whereas in the present case it is not the Revenue s case that the appellant have made exports to its foreign based wholly owned subsidiaries. The exports were made by the appellant to independent foreign buyers and there is no allegation that the export was between the appellant and its wholly owned subsidiaries. The services of the appellant s subsidiaries in a foreign company were procured only for getting the export orders from other independent persons located in foreign country. They have paid only commission to their foreign based wholly owned subsidiaries in which case they would be entitled to the benefit of the Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intent to evade payment of duty. As such by relying upon various precedent decisions, he assails the impugned order on the point of limitation also and prays for setting aside the same. 6. Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh learned Supdt. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and submits that condition No.3 debars applicability of exemption if the exports are made by a Indian partner in a company with equity participation in a overseas joint ventures or wholly owned subsidiaries. He submits that inasmuch as the foreign commission agents are the appellant s fully owned subsidiaries, the benefit of the Notification in question cannot be extended inasmuch as the same is hit by the said condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retation given by the adjudicating authority that the Notification benefit cannot be extended inasmuch as the export orders have been procured through wholly owned subsidiaries are erroneous. It is well-settled law that a Notification has to be read and interpreted on the basis of the words used therein and it is not permissible to ignore or introduce any word in the language of the Notification. On reading the said clause of the condition of the Notification, it is seen that there is no reference therein to the orders procured by the wholly owned subsidiaries, acting as commission agents, from a foreign land. Admittedly in the present case the appellant has not exported the goods to its own wholly owned subsidiaries or overseas joint ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
