TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly it qualifies as 'export of services' and refund is admissible. - appellant is rightly entitled for the refund holding that the services provided by the appellant is export of services. Hence the impugned orders are not sustainable and the same is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos.ST/88579 & 88585/2014 - Final Order Nos. A/1079-1082/2015-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 16-4-2015 - Ramesh Nair, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri Niren Shethia, CA For the Respondent : Shri A B Kulgod, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair: The appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal Nos: 583/PD/14 and PD/584/2014 both dated 16/05/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)-IV, Mumbai Zo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investments in India and provide non-binding advice on the negotiation of the terms and documentation; (v) Assist in the preparation of reports regarding performance of investment sin India; and (vi) Perform such other duties, functions and activities as requested from time to time. (vii) And any other service that AMP Capital Investors may reasonably request from time to time. 3. The service-recipient, M/s. AMP Capital Australia used the advice received from the appellant in further advising to their customers in making investments in India. Since the appellant is providing the aforesaid services to AMP Capital (Australia), who is located in Australia, the services are covered under 'export of services' and accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission that though the research and analysis regarding investment was carried out in India but that services are provided to Australia based entity and the recipient is an Australia based entity, i.e., M/s. AMP Capital (Australia). Therefore, there is no dispute that the services were used outside India. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Amba Research (India) Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, final order No. 21741/2014 dated 24/09/2014. He submits that the fact of the said judgment is absolutely identical to the present case. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai vs. Greater Pacific Capital Pvt. Ltd. Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... related to the analysis carried out in India, but the services are provided to Australia based firm M/s. AMP Capital (Australia). These services are not provided to any person located in India and nobody in India is concerned about the services. Since the services are provided to Australia based firm it is that firm, M/s. AMP Capital (Australia) who is the sole recipient of the services and on the basis of these services, M/s. AMP Capital (Australia) is further providing services to the foreign based companies. That shows, that the services provided by the appellant is consumed by M/s. AMP Capital (Australia), Australia for providing his output services to foreign based companies. Under these facts there is no dispute that the services pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that services are to be used in India. Moreover, as per Circular, issued by the Board in 2009 and considered in the interim Order (supra), if the beneficiary is located outside, refund is admissible. It is not the case of the Revenue that consideration has not been received in foreign currency. We also find that this Tribunal in the case of CST Mumbai vs M/s. Greater Pacific Capital Pvt. Ltd. Appeal Nos.ST/88129,88130,88131,88132,87101/13 in similar circumstances came to the conclusion that refund is admissible. Accordingly, we consider that the appellant has made out a case for eligibility for refund. Therefore appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (ii) Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai vs. Greater Pacific C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... network operators but located in India at the time of providing of the said services. In that case this Tribunal held that Vodafone rendered the telecom service, in the context of international roaming, the benefit accrued to the foreign telecom service provider, though the actual consumer was in India but in that case it was held that it is a support service. In the instant case, the respondent has provided investment advisory services to GPC who is located outside India and having no office in India. In that case it is held that it is a case of export of service. In the circumstance, the respondent is entitled for the refund claim. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld. As the appeals file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
