TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds export status for onsite services rendered abroad post 27.02.2010</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Tech Mahindra Limited</h3> The Appeals were dismissed as the court found that the Assessees satisfied the conditions for exports under the Export of Service Rules, 2005 for onsite ... Denial of refund claim - export of servcies - Notification No.6/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was correct in holding that the Assessees satisfy the condition laid down for exports as defined in Rule (3) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 in respect of onsite services rendered by them abroad for the period from 27.02.2010 onwards - Held that:- onsite services rendered by the Appellants abroad would qualify for being termed as export of service. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal on this point cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The reasoning in the impugned order is, therefore, in consonance with the material produced including amendments to the concerned clauses and subrules. No substantial question of law arises - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the Appeals.2. Whether the Assessees satisfy the conditions for exports as defined in the Export of Service Rules, 2005 for onsite services rendered abroad post 27.02.2010.Analysis:1. The judgment begins with the court addressing the Notices of Motion filed for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals. The court, after considering the reasons stated in the affidavits supporting the Motions, condones the delay and disposes of the Notices of Motion accordingly.2. The Appeals are admitted based on the substantial question of law regarding whether the Assessees satisfy the conditions for exports as defined in the Export of Service Rules, 2005 for onsite services rendered abroad post 27.02.2010. The court, after hearing arguments and examining the memo of appeal, notes that the amended provisions require only payment in convertible foreign exchange for a service to be considered an export of service.3. The court emphasizes that the amended Rule 3 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005, specifically after the omission of certain clauses, now only requires payment in convertible foreign exchange for a service to be considered an export of service. It clarifies that the export of taxable service will be treated as such if payment is received in convertible foreign exchange, irrespective of the service being provided outside India.4. The judgment highlights that the Tribunal's conclusion that the onsite services rendered by the Appellants abroad qualify as export of service is valid. The court finds that the Tribunal's reasoning and findings are in line with the material presented, including the amendments to the relevant clauses and subrules. Therefore, the Appeals are dismissed as the only question framed is not substantial enough to overturn the Tribunal's decision.5. In conclusion, the court rules that the Appeals fail and are dismissed, with no order as to costs. The judgment affirms the Tribunal's decision regarding the export of service rules and the qualification of the onsite services rendered abroad as exports.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
