TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect to buyers in India, the benefit of the same accrued to the company located abroad. The Commissioner(Appeals) has also relied upon the decision in the case of ABS India ltd. Vs. CST Bangalore [2008 (8) TMI 53 - CESTAT Bangalore] wherein the Tribunal has held that booking of orders for sale of goods manufactured by the subsidiary of the appellant which is located in Singapore was services exported and the appellant was not required to pay service tax - the Commissioner(Appeals) held that the services rendered by the respondent are not intermediary services but an export of services. Impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/20293/2017-SM, ST/CO/20237/2017 - 22791/2017 - Dated:- 13-11-2017 - Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following due process of law, the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dt. 31/12/2015 disallowed a part of the refund and aggrieved by the said order respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). Commissioner(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has filed appeal before this Tribunal and the respondent has also filed Cross-objection. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly considering the facts and the evidences on record. He further submitted that the assessee has been providing the intermediary services and not the export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engineering services and marketing support services which are not classifiable as intermediary. He also submitted that the definition of intermediary amended only from 10/2014 to include facilitating the sale of goods. He also submitted that the burden of proof is on the Department to prove that the company has facilitated sale of goods. He further submitted that the services provided are principal to principal basis and not on behalf of the group company. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Paul Merchants Limited Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2013(29) STR 257 (Tri. Del.)] ii. Blue Star Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2008(11) STR 23 (Tri. Bang.)] iii. ABS India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2009(13) STR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the decision in the case of ABS India ltd. Vs. CST Bangalore [2009(13) STR 65 (Tri. Bang.)] wherein the Tribunal has held that booking of orders for sale of goods manufactured by the subsidiary of the appellant which is located in Singapore was services exported and the appellant was not required to pay service tax. Further the Commissioner(Appeals) has discussed in detail the provisions of Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 to come to a conclusion that the services rendered by the respondent are not intermediary services but an export of services. In view of my discussion above and the ratios of the case laws relied upon by the respondent, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
