9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hancing sales of its products to the Indian customers. The respondent- Company is to provide marketing and sales support for the distribution of floor covering or carpet manufactured outside India and sold to the customers in India by M/ s.Tandus Flooring U.S. located in USA and M/ s.Tandus Flooring China, located in China. The respondent-Company is to undertake the responsibility of providing market and support services in relation to the carpets and floor coverings proposed to be sold by Tandus U.S. and Tandus China to the customers located in India through their own dealers or directly. In consideration of the services to be provided by the respondent-Company, it was to receive service fees in freely convertible foreign exchange from Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n made by the Commissioner of Service Tax, the Authority answered the said questions in the following manner: 1. The place of provision of service to be provided by the applicant to Tandus China and Tandus US shall be the location of the service recipients, i.e. in China and US respectively, in accordance with Rule 3 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012; and 2. The provision of service by the applicant to the two recipients named above will amount to export of service within the meaning of Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 2. Challenging the said order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the Authority for Advance Rulings, this writ petition has been filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax. 3. We have heard Sri Jeevan J.Neeralgi , learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Commissioner of Service Tax) before the Authority. 7. Sri Prasad Paranjape , learned Counsel for the respondent has however submitted that the definition of 'intermediary' given in Rule 2 (f) of the Rules of 2012, has undergone a change by way of an amendment, which came into effect on 01.10.2014 and as such, by virtue of Section 96E of the Act of 1994, the Ruling of the Authority, which is impugned in this petition, would become inapplicable after 01.10.2014 i.e., the date when the amendment has been brought into effect. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for with the order of the Authority which is impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Rules of 2012. 11. The said question was not raised before the Authority. For deciding the said question, facts have to be examined as to whether the service being provided by the respondent-Company was intermediary service or not ? 12. Such factual aspect of the matter having not been raised before the Authority cannot, for the first time, be raised in the writ petition. A new ground cannot be taken in the writ petition, especially, when the same is a ground relatable to facts and not solely on a question of law. In such view of the matter, on this ground also, we would not be inclined to interfere with the order of the Authority. 13. In view of the fact that the respondent has itself admitted that by amendment (which has come into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
