TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e western units abroad, which may be located in India and the services provided being business auxiliary services is also to the western unit who is recipient of services and consumers of services, it has to be held that services were being exported in terms of Export of Services Rule 2005 and not liable to Service Tax - the service is held as Export of Service - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/21487/2014-DB, ST/21488/2014-DB, ST/21489/2014-DB - Final Order Nos. 20183 - 20185 / 2017 - Dated:- 1-2-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri Parashiva Murthy, AR For the Appellant Shri B.G. Chidananda, Advocate For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order has allowed the assessee s appeal to the extent which are acceptable to the Department except for the decision on the issue as to whether there is export of services under BAS, the assessee exports ITSS, BSS and BAS. In case of BAS, the activities involved are identifying potential clients, gathering market data, identifying potential markets, providing analysis of competitive positions etc. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that BAS is export of service by relying upon the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Blue Star Ltd. V. CCE, Bangalore (2008 (11) STR 33 (Tri.-Bang.) (ii) ABS Ltd. V. CCE, Bangalore (2009 (13) STR 65 (Tri.-Bang.) The decision of the CESTAT in the case of Blue Star cited supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Export of Service Rules. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a reasoned order holding the service as Export of Service . He further submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in support of his decision has relied upon two judgments of the Tribunal holding that in similar circumstances, it was held to be Export of Service . Here it is pertinent to refer para 4 of the impugned order, which is reproduced herein below: 4. The appellant is a company incorporated in India. They have a subsidiary company in Singapore. The appellant booked orders for the sales of the goods manufactured by the subsidiary situated in Singapor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indicate service being rendered in India. It is not correct. And also because the appellant books the orders for the Singapore Company, we have to consider that the service is delivered only to the Singapore Company. The recipient of the service is a Singapore Company. When the recipient of the service is a Singapore Company, it cannot be said that service is delivered in India and the benefit of the service is derived only by the recipient company. Because of the booking of the orders, the Singapore Company gets business. Therefore, the service is also utilized abroad. In terms of Rule 3(2) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 the service rendered is indeed a service, which has been exported. In such circumstances, the appellant is not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
