2019 (7) TMI 1420

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... olding that the services rendered by the respondent is export of service and hence the said service is not liable to service tax. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Madhup Sharan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Appellant None For the Respondent ORDER PER: BENCH The Revenue has filed these appeals against the impugned order dt. 31/07/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore whereby the Commissioner has dropped the demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 23,07,36,138/- in respect of Business Auxiliary Service for the period from 01/02/2006 to 31/03/2008. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is identical and there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the benefit accrue outside India, the said service can be considered as export of service. Aggrieved by the dropping of demand, Department has filed these three appeals. 3. Heard the learned AR. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. Since the case pertained to the year 2009 and the respondent has not appeared in the appeals filed by them challenging the demand confirmed by the Commissioner vide the impugned order and their appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution, we proceed to decide these appeals on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the learned AR. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue submitted that dropping the demand of service tax is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the service rendered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ansactions of the stated Business Auxiliary Service rendered by the assessee, towards which the consideration has been received by them in convertible foreign exchange, they fulfill the conditions of Rule 3(2) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005, and therefore such service is liable to be treated as export of service. This opinion of mine is in consonance with the clarification issued Central Board of Excise and Customs, in circular No.111/05/2009-ST. F.No.137/307/2007 CX4(Pt) dt. 24/02/2009, wherein it is clarified that:- 3. … …. … …For the services that fall under Category III [Rule 3(1)(iii)], the relevant factor is the location of the service receiver and not the place of performance. In this context, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X