9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nge. The very same issue has been decided by this very Bench in the appellant s own case M/S. SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAI COMMISSIONERATE [ 2018 (12) TMI 947 - CESTAT CHENNAI] that There is no dispute that the service is provided outside the territory of India, but the Revenue wants to tax the assessee since it collects sale proceeds in India. But the legislature in its wisdom, has framed Rule 3(ii) to encourage exports and in turn foreign exchange remittances. We find force in the contention of the Ld. Advocate that the activity of the appellant being wholly performed outside India, is excluded from service tax liability as per Rule 3(ii) of the Taxation of Services (provided fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt appeal has been filed before this forum. 4. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri M.N. Bharathi, Learned Advocate appeared for the appellant and Shri M. Ambe, Learned Deputy Commissioner represented the Revenue. 5. The Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit at the outset that the issue of demand in this case, as confirmed in the impugned order, is no more res integra as the same is settled in favour of the appellant by the following orders of this very Bench of the CESTAT, in the appellant s own cases: - (i) Final Order No. 42475 of 2018 dated 25.09.2018 CESTAT, Chennai; (ii) Final Order No. 43100 of 2018 dated 10.12.2018 - CESTAT, Chennai [2018 (12) TMI 947 CESTAT, Chennai]; and also the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We find force in the contention of the Ld. Advocate that the activity of the appellant being wholly performed outside India, is excluded from service tax liability as per Rule 3(ii) of the Taxation of Services (provided from outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006. Further, we note that on an identical set of facts this very Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bnazrum Agro Export Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that such activity would not be exigible to service tax by virtue of Rule 3(ii) of the Rules. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below for the sake of convenience: 5. We find that the Ld. Advocate is correct in his assertion that since services have been wholly performed outside India, the activity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
