Tribunal allows refund claim for after-sale services to foreign client, citing export of service rules.

The Tribunal set aside the order disallowing the refund claim of Rs. 28,76,109, finding that providing after-sale warranty services to a foreign client constitutes an export of service under previous judgments. The Tribunal remanded the case for reconsideration in line with the precedent set in Simpra Agencies, stating that the effective use and enjoyment of services in India did not preclude the applicability of export of service rules.

---

---

Issues: Refund claim disallowance based on service location, applicability of export of service rules, interpretation of previous tribunal judgments.

In the present case, the appeal was filed against the disallowance of the appellant's refund claim amounting to Rs. 28,76,109 on the grounds that the services provided were performed in India, as per the contract with M/s. MHI Engine System Asia PTE Ltd., Singapore. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the effective use and enjoyment of the services took place in India, leading to the disallowance. However, the Tribunal noted that the issue has been previously addressed in the case of Simpra Agencies v. CCE, where it was established that providing after-sale warranty service on behalf of a foreign client, with payment received in convertible foreign exchange, falls under the scope of export of service. This position was supported by earlier judgments in the cases of Paul Merchants Ltd. and Gap International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the impugned order disallowing the refund claim was not sustainable in light of the aforementioned judgments. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority to reconsider the refund claim in accordance with the judgment in the case of Simpra Agencies.

---