Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 232 - AT - Service TaxExport of services - place of provisions of services - Intermediary services or not - Nature of amount credited in the books of account - reimbursement in respect of the losses incurred by them - Appellants have claimed that these amounts were received by them is respect of operating expenses incurred by them in order to manage the existing sales of the products imported and not for provision of service. - Revenue has in appeal sought to compare the un-comparables i.e. goods with services or tangibles with intangibles HELD THAT:- From 27.02.2010, the condition in respect of provision of service in India and usage outside India was omitted from the Export of Service Rules, 2005 in respect of category III services. Thus for determining whether a service provided which falls in Category III is Export of Service or not the relevant conditions to be satisfied were that- (a) The services should be provided in relation to business or commerce to a recipient located outside India; and (b) Payment for such services should be received by the service provider in convertible foreign exchange. Commissioner has in impugned order found that both these conditions were satisfied in respect of the transactions under question and has accordingly held that the services provided by the appellant are export of services. Revenue has not disputed by stating that the conditions specified by the Export of Service Rules, 2005 were not satisfied, they have sought to state that the Commissioner should have decided the matter independently without referring to these rules, in terms of general definition of exports ort by referring to Article 286 of Constitution. Intermediary services - HELD THAT:- The term intermediary has been defined by the Rule 2(f) ibid and the phrase “intermediary services” used in Rule 9(c) will have to be interpreted accordingly. Revenue has not shown as to how the Appellant has acted as intermediary between the two persons namely service provider and service receiver of the main service - Since the nothing has been brought on record to show that appellants were providing the intermediary services to the recipient in manner as defined by Rule 2(f) we do not find any merits in the submissions of the revenue that place of provision of services in the present case will be location of service provider as per Rule 9 - commissioner has correctly determined the place of provision of service by application of Rule 3 as the location of the service recipient. There are no merits in the appeal filed by the revenue - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|