9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplier to their overseas group companies. In this transaction, it is the appellant who are providing the service to the overseas group companies. From the reading of Section 66A and Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of service tax Rules 1994, it is absolutely clear that the service tax liability under the above provision is only on the recipient of service in those cases when the Indian person is receiving the service from abroad and the service provider is not having any office in India - Since the appellant are not receiving any service, on the contrary, they are providing services to overseas group companies, the provision of Section 66A and Rule made there under is absolutely not applicable, therefore, the demand is also not maintainable. Dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, there is no case of receipt of service from overseas group companies, accordingly, the Section 66A is not applicable. He further submits that the appellant in fact by providing the service to overseas group companies, made export of service, therefore, due to export also it is not taxable. He further submits that even otherwise since, in this case it is sharing of expenses with the group companies, the receipt of reimbursement towards sharing is not taxable under Man Power supply service has held in various judgments. In support of his above submissions, he placed reliance on the following judgments:- Nissin Break India P. Ltd-2019 (24) ELT 563 (Tri. Del.) Nissin Break India Pvt. Ltd.-2019 (24) G.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the facts of the present case there is no dispute that the appellant have received the reimbursement towards salary and other miscellaneous expenses from their group companies located outside. This reimbursement was received in connection with some support service provided by the appellant, in connection with supply of goods by Indian supplier to their overseas group companies. In this transaction, it is the appellant who are providing the service to the overseas group companies. The demand was made invoking Section 66A and Rules made there under which is reproduced below:- Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 (1) Where any service specified in clause (105) of section 65 is, - is, - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n India. As stated above since the appellant are not receiving any service, on the contrary, they are providing services to overseas group companies, the provision of Section 66A and Rule made there under is absolutely not applicable, therefore, the demand is also not maintainable. The similar issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of BMW India Pvt. Ltd-2017 (10) TMI 905 (CESTAT- Chandigarh) wherein the demand in the identical issue has been set aside. The same issue has also been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Sumitomo Corporation India P. Ltd. Wherein the Tribunal has given the following finding:- 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. On the first two issues relating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is the person who requested for the said service and is liable to make payment for the same, who has to be treated as recipient of service and not the person affected by the performance of the service. The destination has to be decided based on place of consumption not the place of performance of service in the case of Category III, Business Auxiliary Service. The appellant/ assessee were engaged in promoting market for foreign entities in India. This will amount to export of service. 9. In view of the settled position of law as discussed above, we find no merit in the impugned order in so far it confirms the demand against the appellant under BAS. 6. As per our above discussion and judgments cited herei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
