9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and for judicial scrutiny. With regard to provision of service, it is an undisputed fact that appellant had entered into an agreement with the overseas service receiver and pursuant to such agreement, had provided the service on payment of consideration in the form of “advisory fee”. After receiving the taxable service by the overseas entity, the place of actual use of service will not be considered as the relevant factor for export inasmuch as the appellant was not a party to the service used within India and there is no specific agreements executed between the appellant and the Indian recipient of service - Since the appellant is no way connected to the user of service in India, it cannot be said that the services provided to overseas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce tax authorities, claiming refund to service tax paid on the input services. The refund application was rejected by the original authority on the ground that the relationship between the companies recipient of service and the appellant are that of holding and subsidiary and as such, it cannot be said that the appellant had earned income from its group/holding company. The other ground assigned for rejection of the refund benefit is that the services provided by the appellant cannot be termed as export of service, as the services were used by associated company for making investment in India. Appeal filed against the adjudication order dated 11.03.2016 was also dismissed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2015 that the entire share holdings of the appellant company were held by Ms. Ritu Singhal and Shri Rajiv Singhal. There is no specific mention about the overseas recipient of service M/s. Banyantree Capital Advisors Limited, Mauritius. Further, no evidences were produced by the department to show that the appellant was the subsidiary company of the overseas service receiver. Thus, I am of the firm view that denial of refund benefit on the ground that appellant is subsidiary of the service receiver will stand for judicial scrutiny. 7. With regard to provision of service, it is an undisputed fact that appellant had entered into an agreement with the overseas service receiver and pursuant to such agreement, had provided the service on pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
