9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ") and had provided services of sourcing them the contract from Indian Railways. Under Rule 3 of Export of Services Rule,2005, export of service is exempted from service tax. The appellant wrongly paid service tax on the commission got from M/s. General Motors Corpn. through Indian Railways and claimed the refund of tax. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim because it is hit by Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 3. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant placed the copy of the contract between the parties. He submits that it is revealed from the Purchase Order of Indian Railways that the appellant would get the commission in foreign-exchange. But the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the Annexure to Purchase Order that necessary foreign exchange would be released to the Indian Railways for payment to GMC. It further appears that the appellant shall raise the bill to the consignee (Indian Railways) at 5% agency commission at USD which shall be paid in equivalent to non-convertible Indian rupees. Ld. Advocate submits that Indian Railways deducted the commission of the appellant in their bill raised to M/s. GMC, USA and the less amount of foreign-exchange was released. Thus, if GMC would pay the appellant agency commission in foreign-exchange, then the same amount of foreign-exchange shall be released to Indian Railways to pay GMC, USA. In effect, the amount of foreign-exchange was not released t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in fulfilment with the legislative intention. In the present case, it is revealed from contract that the appellant would be paid USD equipment to non-convertible Indian Rupee at the Rate of Exchange prevailing on the date of supply order. It is noted that the equivalent amount of foreign exchange payable to the appellant was not released to the Indian Railways, and therefore, the appellant complied with the provision of Rule 3(1)(b) of the Rules. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find that the denial of benefit of Rule 4 of the said Rules is not justified. So, the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly, it is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Order dictated in the open Court.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
