9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness Auxiliary Service ('BAS' for short) and for the above service to be exempt under Rule 3(2) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005, the services should have been provided from India and used outside India, the payment for such services should have been received in convertible foreign exchange. 2. Based on the above, a Show Cause Notice dated 29.10.2012 came to be issued and thereafter came to be adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, who as per Order-in-Original No.LTUC/77/2013 (ADC) dated 28.3.2013, confirmed the demands as proposed in the show cause notice. 2.1 Not happy with the demand raised against it along with interest and penalty, it appears that the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side India, employing the services of service provider that is Indian entity, the understanding for providing service is for extending the benefit of the product manufactured by it to ultimate consumers. In any case, it is not the case of the Revenue that the appellant service provider did consume the manufactured product itself. 8. This becomes clear when we peruse particularly paragraph 2 of the Show Cause Notice issued to the appellant herein, the same is extracted for convenience: "During the course of conduct of internal audit of the taxpayers units, it was noticed that they received certain sums as other income as per their balance sheets and P and L account. On scrutiny of the other income, it was noticed that during the years 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s able to substantiate the quantum of services provided after February 27, 2010, and the consideration received thereon".
11. We note that the learned Delhi Bench has referred to and relied on its own earlier order in the case of M/s. GAP International Sourcing, apart from its own another order in the case of Paul merchants Limited.
12. In the light of the above settled position of law, we are also of the view that the interpretation of Rule 3(2) has to be drawn by the authorities below is contrary to law and the consequent demand, therefore, cannot sustain. Resultantly, we set aside the impugned order and demand and allow the appeal with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in open court on 19.06.2024) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
