9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Finance Act, 1994, therefore the entire matter needs a reconsideration in the light of the judgments in the identical facts. The issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision in the case of CELTIC SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -VADODARA-I [ 2022 (6) TMI 306 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that ' it is clear that in the present case the appellant and the service recipient are two distinct person, hence, the service provided by the appellant to M/s. Celtic Cross Holding Inc. USA clearly falls under export of service.' Conclusion - The adjudicating authority has not properly understood that the appellant and the service recipient are whether separate entity referring to item b of expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued to the appellant. The said notice alleged that the services provided by the appellant to its group companies cannot be considered as export of services as per clause F of Rule 6A of service tax Rules, 1994 read with sub-clause (b) of explanation 3 of Clause (44) for Section 65B of Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice also considered the services provided by the appellant as exempt service as per the sub-clause (2) of Clause (e) of Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that the services provided by the appellant in non-taxable territory, accordingly a demand of an amount equal to 6% / 7% of the value of such exempted services under rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 invoking Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Simplified India Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST, East Delhi 2022 (9) TMI 522 CESTAT, New Delhi 3. Shri Mihir Rayka learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the entire case of the revenue is that since the service recipient in foreign company is appellant s own establishment therefore in terms of Rule 6A(1)(f) of export of service Rules, 1994, the Service is not export of service, however, at the same time it is a contention of revenue that since, the service was provided in the nontaxable territory the same is exempted and therefore the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
