Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (12) TMI 698 - AT - Service Tax


Issues involved:
1. Whether the appellant complied with Rule 5 for a refund of service tax paid on input services?

Analysis:

The appellant, a service provider registered for taxable services, entered an agreement with a UK entity for line production services for a movie. The appellant claimed a refund of service tax paid on input services, contending that the output services were exported, hence no service tax was due. The Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner of GST rejected the refund, citing the film's production in India and the absence of the UK entity's name in the scenario. The CAG report was also referenced to deny export status. The Tribunal analyzed the agreement, noting the UK entity as the producer with full rights, and shooting in foreign locations besides India. It concluded that the film's main producer and beneficiary were the UK entity, making it an export of service. The Tribunal dismissed the CAG report's relevance, as it pertained to a different film. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellant. The judgment emphasized that the appellant was entitled to the refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

In essence, the Tribunal deliberated on the compliance with Rule 5 for a refund of service tax paid on input services in the context of the appellant's agreement with a UK entity for line production services for a movie. The judgment scrutinized the agreement terms, shooting locations, and beneficiary rights to ascertain the export status of the services provided. The Tribunal differentiated the facts of the case from the CAG report, emphasizing the UK entity's role as the primary producer and beneficiary. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, highlighting the appellant's entitlement to the refund under Rule 5.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates