9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nit with STPI (Software Technology Parks of India) for the purpose of getting their software exports certified as required by RBI. During the period 2012-13 to 2016-17, the Appellant provided engineering services to its Group Companies situated outside India by treating the same as Export of Services as per Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Appellant had not charged the service tax on engineering services to its Group Companies situated outside India. The said service satisfied all conditions mentioned under Rule 6A of Export of Services Rules, 1994. 1.1 The Central Excise audit raised objection that the services provided by the appellant to its group companies will be considered as 'Establishment Of Distinct Persons' as per sub-clau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reign Company and the holding Company is GEA Process Engineering Aktiengesellschaft. He also referred to the annual return MGT-7 to show that both are separate entity. He also enclosed sample copies of certificate of residency pertaining to holding Company and Group companies situated in Denmark, Singapore, Germany and France. He submits that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by following judgments of this tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court: * Celtic Systems Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Vadodara-I - 2023 (70) G.S.T.L. 74 (Tri. - Ahmd.) * Linde Engineering India Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India - 2022 (57) G.S.T.L. 358 (Gujarat High Court) * L & T Sargent & Lundy Limited Vs. C.C.E. & S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the service recipient is not one of the category as given in item b of explanation 3 of Clause 44 of Section 65B of the Act. We find that on the very identical facts various judgments have been passed by this tribunal as cited above by the learned counsel. We find that the adjudicating authority has not properly understood that the appellant and the service recipient are whether separate entity referring to item b of explanation 3 of Clause 44 of Section 65B of the Finance Act, 1994 and also on the same set of facts the judgments cited above have not been considered by the adjudicating authority, therefore in our considered view the entire matter needs a reconsideration in the light of the judgments in the identical facts. 5. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
