TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in foreign countries who are paying consideration to the appellant - the services covered by these proceedings are export of services. Reliance placed in the the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/S SUNRISE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS CCE ST, CHANDIGARH [ 2018 (5) TMI 1417 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] decided by Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal - It is noted that this Tribunal has held that such organisations cannot be treated as intermediaries under the definition of Rule 2(f) of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. The contention of Revenue that the appellant is an intermediary is not in accordance with law. It is further noted that the appellant has foregone the refund of Rs.26,43,969/-. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id activity during the period from 04.05.2013 to 07.02.2014. After making the above payments towards service tax, appellant realized that the service tax was leviable on services provided within India and there was no service tax leviable on services which are provided outside India. On realization that their services were export of service, they filed on 07.04.2014 a claim for refund of already paid service tax amounting to Rs.50,73,141/-. Appellant was issued with a show cause notice dated 27.06.2014. The show cause notice contended that the appellant had not uploaded the revised ST-3 return for the period from October 2012 to March 2013 and that for the period from October 2012 to March 2013, the appellant had disclosed their transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue that services are provided in India are contrary to the provisions of the Act because for an activity to be qualified as service, receipt of consideration is a must. Appellant is not receiving any consideration from prospective students. Therefore, it can be concluded that the appellant is not providing any service to the prospective students. Since the appellant is receiving consideration in convertible foreign exchange, the service is treated as export. He has further submitted that for the period other than October 2012 to March 2013, they have filed ST-3 return declaring the activity as export of service. He has, however, admitted that all foreign remittance certificates have not been submitted. 3. Heard the learned AR for Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is providing service to universities located in foreign countries who are paying consideration to the appellant. We, therefore, hold that the services covered by these proceedings are export of services. We have also gone through the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sunrise Immigrations Consultants Pvt. Ltd. decided by Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal. We note that this Tribunal has held that such organisations cannot be treated as intermediaries under the definition of Rule 2(f) of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. We, therefore, hold that the contention of Revenue that the appellant is an intermediary is not in accordance with law. We further note that the appellant has foregone the refund of Rs.26,43,969/-. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
