9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the application filed by the applicant, we find that there is sufficient reason for recalling the exparte stay order dated 23.9.2013. Accordingly, we recall the stay order dated 23.9.2013 and restore the stay application to its original number. The miscellaneous application filed by the applicant is allowed. 3. With the consent of both sides, we take up the stay application for hearing. 4. The learned counsel on behalf of the applicant fairly submits that the Tribunal, in an identical issue, in their own case for earlier period, as reported in 2009 (13) STR 641 upheld the demand of duty on merit and set aside the demand for the extended period of limitation as well as penalty. He submits t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a temporary stay and the re-quantification has already been done and sent to the Senior Standing Counsel to place it before the Hon'ble High Court. In support of his contention, he placed letter dated 19.6.2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax addressed to Senior Standing Counsel. He further submits that there is no stay against the present demand and therefore this Tribunal may proceed with the stay petition hearing. On merit, he submits that the present case relates to the period December 2007 to December 2008 and the circular dated 16.4.2010, as relied upon by the learned counsel, has no relevance to the present case. He further submits that the Tribunal already passed the order following the earlier circular dated 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ceded 82.4% of the above premium amounting to Rs. 21,01,200/- to the foreign company. Under this contract, which was independent of the primary contract of insurance, M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. were 'the insured' and the foreign company was 'the insurer'. To be more specific, they were the reinsured and the reinsurer respectively, the contract being one of reinsurance. Obviously, the assessee, who negotiated the contract of reinsurance on behalf of the reinsured (M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) and received commission for the services from the reinsurer (foreign company), would be called 'reinsurance broker'. It is thus evident that a reinsurance broker acting as intermediary between an Indian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... insurance between them. By and large, what they provided was a service to the Indian insurance company. Of course, they also served the foreign company by remittance of the ceded premium (after deducting ceding commission and brokerage) to that company. 12. Going by the above nature of the transactions, we are unable to accept the claim of the appellants that there was 'export of service' by them in this case. Therefore, the appellants cannot claim under the Export of Services Rules, 2005, nor under Notifications 2/99, 6/99 and 21/2003 cited by their counsel. It is not in dispute that the appellants received their brokerage in Indian currency. For the Notifications to be applicable, there must be physical receipt of remuneration in convert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
