TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Germany, the manufacturers of bulk handling systems and the service provided by the Appellant is Business Auxiliary Service covered by Section 65 (105)(zzb). This service provided by a person in India is treated as export of services out of India if it has been provided in relation to business or commission to a recipient located outside India, the service has been used outside India and payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fleiderer Gmbh Co. KG, Germany and Coperion Waeschle Gmbh Co. KG, Germany, who are the manufacturers of bulk material handling systems. The services provided by the appellant is Business Auxiliary services. The department was of the view that since the services were performed in India, the same would be taxable in India and cannot be treated as export of service. On this basis, the Commissioner vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat service provided by the appellant is Business Auxiliary services (commission agent) covered by Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 and since it has been received by persons abroad not having any branch or business establishment in India for use in their business and since the payment for the same has been received by the Appellant in convertible foreign currency, the same has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of service as the same have been performed in India and in this regard, he drew our attention to the Commissioners findings at internal page 27 and 28 of the impugned order. He pleaded that the appellant have not been able to establish prima facie case in their favour and hence, this is not the case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 5. We have considered the submissions from bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he services being in relation to business or commerce, the question of their export would be decided on the basis of location of the person using these services for his business, not on the basis of place of performance. We also find that the point of dispute in this case stands decided in favour of the appellant by the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Paul Merchants Ltd. (supra) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
