Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (8) TMI 810

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gether for disposal. 2. The respondent assessee is engaged in the business of providing advices. They entered into an agreement dated 1.10.2004 with New Vernon Advisors LLP (Investment Manager), USA (NV) and into another agreement dated 1.1.2006 with SF Investment Inc. (Investment Manager) located outside India. The appellant provided services to the firms situated outside India in the nature of research report on merits of investment opportunities or information relevant to make the judgments for making investment around the world and research & inputs for providing recommendation for purchase, sale, retain, exchange and other transaction relating to investment made by the Funds Manager. These services are classifiable under the Banking a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was unable to utilize the CENVAT Credit in respect of the inputs used for providing the aforementioned output services. The respondent assessee, therefore, filed refund claims from time-to-time, which were rejected vide different Orders-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax on the ground that the refunds are inadmissible as the assessee has failed to prove that output services had been exported and input services in question have been used in providing the output services as required under Notification No. 05/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.3.2006. The details of the amount and period are as follows: - Date of refund claim Period Amount Date of OIO Date of OIA 7.2.2008 1.04.2007 to 30.9.2007 30,50,163/- 12.8.2009 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... services accrue outside India." Controversy regarding use of different wordings used in definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as well as wordings of Notification No. 5/2006 (NT) issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, had finally laid at rest vide Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994, 2010, which substituted the words "used in" by words "used for" with retrospective effect i.e. from 14.3.2006. Therefore, input services in question had been used for providing the output service which were exported without payment of Service Tax." 2.4 The Revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting refund has filed the present appeals on the following grounds:- (a) Advis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ia also fall flat and is dismissed. 3.2 The ground taken is that the respondent assessee and the service receiver are related parties, as they have mutual interest in each others business because the respondent is undertaking back office operation and are providing assistance to the Investment Manager (client) located outside India. Also, in view of the fact that the investment Manager located outside India is using the output services provided by the assessee for making investment in India, for which the assessee is getting fixed fee along with reimbursement of pocket expenses, which are not in the nature of Advisory or Support services. This ground is also dismissed for the reason that the two conditions under Rule 3(2) of Export of Ser .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... njoyed the services in India as the services have been used for making investment in India and thus, the services cannot be treated as export of service. This ground is also not tenable in view of the clear guidelines and condition laid down in Export of Service Rules, 2005 already discussed above. Further, this issue has also been decided in favour of the assessee by the Larger Bench's decision of the Tribunal in the case of Paul Merchants Ltd. Vs. Commisisoner of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 2013 (29) STR 257 (Tri-Del), wherein it has been held that in case of remittance of money by a person located outside India through a Banker of Remitter located outside India to a person in India. In such case, the transaction relating to the ser .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates