TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eas, the Service recipient is working under the banner of M/s Celtic Cross Holding Inc. USA. Both the companies are separately registered in their respective countries. Even the directors of the company though two directors are common but others are different. Even if there is a note in the balance sheet of the appellant company that they are associate of M/s Celtic Cross Holding Inc. USA but in the eyes of law as per the companies act both companies are independent entity. Therefore, Clause (f) of Rules 6A (1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 stand complied with. This issue has been considered of Hon ble Gujarat High in the case of LINDE ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2020 (8) TMI 181 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount to export on the ground that:- (i) the appellant could not prove that they have received the export proceeds in convertible foreign exchange (ii) the appellant and the service recipient are not establishment of a distinct person in accordance with item (b) of Explanation 3 of Clause (44) of Section 65B of the Finance Act. For the reason that as per department, both the appellant and service recipient are falling under same entity, hence, they are not a distinct person in accordance with Clause (f) of Rule 6A (1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the Service does not fall under the category of export. Being aggrieved by the Order-In-Original appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). From the order of the Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f M/s Celtic Cross Holding Inc. USA. Therefore, as per the Hon ble High Court judgment it is settled that the appellant and service recipient are two distinct person, therefore, the condition of Clause (f) stands fulfilled and the supply of service clearly falls under the export of service. 3. On the other hand, Shri. J. A. Patel, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. From the facts on the records, it is not disputed that the appellant company is working under the banner of M/s Celtic System Pvt. Ltd. registered with the registrar of companies in India. Whereas, the Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
