2017 (7) TMI 1238 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - invocation of Export of Service Rules 2005 - N/N. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 - Held that - The appellant fulfills the conditions mentioned under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules 1994 and the subject services are covered as export of service - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 citing Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, citing Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012. The impugned order invoked provisions of Export of Service Rules, 2005, which had been rescinded by Notification No. 28/2012-Service Tax dated 20.6.2012. The appellant argued that under the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, their services, with the recipient located in Denmark, should be considered as export of service under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994.

The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order incorrectly applied the provisions of rescinded Export of Service Rules, 2005, which were not in force during the relevant period of the case (April 2013 to June 2013). Additionally, it was argued that the services provided by the appellant to a recipient in Denmark met the conditions for export of service under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, as per the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and facts presented by both sides, found that the appellant satisfied the conditions outlined in Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 for the services to be classified as export of service. The key conditions included the location of the service provider in India, the recipient being situated outside India (in Denmark), compliance with the provisions of Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994, and the payment received in convertible foreign exchange. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment revolved around the correct application of the rules governing the classification of services as exports, specifically focusing on the location of the service provider and recipient, compliance with relevant legal provisions, and the receipt of payment in foreign exchange. The decision provided clarity on the eligibility of the appellant's services for export classification under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal and potential relief for the appellant.