9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SI and the appellant performed like a commission agent and the appellant's job was to seek or procure sales orders for products manufactured by steel mills outside India for customers in India. Once the foreign mills and the Indian customers come to an understanding on the terms and conditions of supply, the purchase orders used to be placed on the foreign mills by the customers themselves and the goods were directly supplied by foreign mills to Indian customers and AMSI used to get commission on such transaction. A part of the commission received by AMSI was shared with the appellant in convertible foreign exchange. It appeared to Revenue that in respect of commission received by the appellant from April 2005 to January 2009, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.04.2006. ii. What is extant and scope of phrase "such service is delivered outside India and used outside India" used in Rule 3(2)(a) of Export of Services Rules, 2005 from 19.04.2006 to 28.02.2007. iii. What is extant and scope of phrase "services provided from India and used outside India" used in Rule 3(2)(a) of Export of Services Rules, 2005 from 01.03.2007 onwards. iv. Whether the services rendered to foreign entity located outside India for development of its business in India will qualify as Export of Service in terms of the above phrases used in the Export of Services Rules, 2005 from time to time and the decision of Apex Court in case of GVK Industries?" 3. Larger Bench was constituted and hearing took place on 17.04.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayments for such service have been received in convertible foreign exchange." Subsequently, the appeal was listed for hearing before this Bench. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the customers were from India, Revenue had a belief that the services were provided in India. However, the Larger Bench has held that the services provided by the appellant in the present proceedings are export of service under the requirements of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005. He has further submitted that in view of the finding of the Larger Bench, the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. Heard the learned AR for Revenue. Learned AR has submitted that the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
