9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the products of the group companies for which the appellant received commission in convertible foreign exchange. The Commissioner, in view of the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in Arcelor Mittal[ 2023 (8) TMI 107 - CESTAT MUMBAI-LB] , was not justified in holding that since the services were used and provided in India, the same would not constitute export of service . The order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Anil Bezawada, Advocate and Shri Ashish Choudhary, Represenative for the Appellant Shri S.K. Ray, Authorised Representative for the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led rebate claims as provided under the Export Rules, 2005. For the period from September 2007 till 2011, the appellant exported services under rule 4 of the Export Rules, 2005 without payment of service tax. 4. A show cause notice dated 19.04.2012 was issued to the appellant for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 alleging that the services provided by the appellant would be covered under business auxiliary services [BAS] and so the appellant was asked to explain why service tax should not be demanded. The appellant filed a detailed reply denying the allegations made in the show cause notice. The Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 26.03.2013 did not accept the contention of the appellant that the amount received by the appellant for the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions clearly hold that where persons residing in India provide service to foreign entities to enable them to book orders for supply of material to customers in India, the person residing in India would render BAS to the foreign entities and such service would be treated as export of service under rule 3(1)(iii) of the 2005 Export Rules since the foreign entities are located outside India and the payment is received by such persons in India in convertible foreign exchange. Thus, even though the activity may ultimately result in supplies to persons in India, it would not be considered as services provided in India. 34. The Circular dated 24.02.2009 issued by CBEC regarding rule 3(i)(iii) of the 2005 Export Rules also supports Arcelor Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lor India provides the necessary details of the customers in India to the foreign steel mills and, thereafter, the foreign steel mills and the Indian customers execute a contract for supply of the goods. The goods are directly supplied by the foreign steel mills to the Indian customers. Arcelor India also satisfies condition (b) of rule 3(2) as payments for such service have been received in convertible foreign exchange. (emphasis supplied) 11. In the present case, as noticed above, in terms of the agreement between the appellant and group companies situated outside India which did not have any permanent establishment in India, the appellant solicited orders for supply of the products of the group companies for which the appellant received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
