Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 755 - CESTAT MUMBAIDenial of refund claim - Business Auxiliary Service - reverse charge mechanism - Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed partly the refund claim on the premise that they have made payment twice - On merits, he rejected the claim holding that the service of the appellant does not fall under the Export of Services Rules - Held that:- in case of marketing of product of their foreign counterpart in India but the service of marketing of product a person who is located outside India has consumed the service outside India. In these circumstances, it is held that the case of the appellant qualifies as export of service as per Rule 3(3)(i) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005. The same view was taken by this Tribunal in Blue Star v. CCE[2014 (12) TMI 25 - CESTAT MUMBAI] Although payment has been received in Indian currency on behalf of the service recipient located in India from the service provider and in that case it was held that it is a case of export of service. Therefore, following decision in National Engineering Industries Ltd. (2011 (9) TMI 759 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) I hold that the appellant complied with the condition of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for refund claim. No infirmity in the impugned order in allowing the refund claim in respect of the excess amount paid by them. Therefore, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the refund claim - it is the case of Export of Service as per Rules, 2005 therefore, the appellant is entitled to refund claim and the Cross Objections filed by Revenue have no merits - Decided in favour of Revenue.
|