Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 878 - AT - Service TaxRefund of CENVAT Credit - Appellant and the service recipient are establishments of a distinct person or not - refund denied on the ground that the services rendered by the Appellant do not meet the criteria under Clause (f) of Rule 6A(1) of the STR inasmuch as it is an overseas branch office of Zaloni Inc. and are merely establishments of distinct persons in accordance with Explanation 3(b) of Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the case at hand is no more res integra and has already been decided by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of LINDE ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2020 (8) TMI 181 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it was held that the respondents would not have any jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Act, 1994 read with Rules, 1994 to bring the services rendered by the petitioner No.1 to its parent Company within the purview of levy of service tax under the provisions of the Act, 1994. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VODAFONE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS BV. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [2012 (1) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT] has held that a subsidiary and its parent company located in different taxable territories are totally distinct taxpayer (s) or different entities. The Appellant received the charges for their services in convertible foreign exchange. Therefore by respectfully following the ratio as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and considering the fact that the Appellant and the service recipient are two distinct persons, the service provided by the Appellant to Zaloni Inc., USA clearly falls under the category of export of service - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|