2016 (2) TMI 724 - AT - Service Tax

CESTAT Upholds Revenue's Refund Rejection Based on Place of Provisions of Service Rules

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI upheld the rejection of refund claims by the Revenue, citing the Place of Provisions of Service Rules, 2012. The ... Refund of cenvat credit - Export of services are not - providing 'scientific and technical consultancy service' to clients located outside India - place of performance of services - Held that:- the services rendered by the appellant were consumed abroad where the appellant's clients used the service of inspection/test/analysis to decide whether the goods intended to be imported by them from India conformed to the requisite specifications and standards. In other words, the benefit of the service accrued to the foreign clients outside the Indian territory. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that there was no export of service - refund cannot be denied - Decided against the revenue. Issues:1. Refund claims rejection based on Place of Provisions of Service Rules, 2012.2. Classification of services as export of services.3. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with the rejection of refund claims by the Revenue based on the Place of Provisions of Service Rules, 2012. The appellant, a provider of scientific and technical consultancy services, filed refund claims for specific periods. The rejection was on the grounds that the services were performed within the country, thus not amounting to export of services. The first appellate authority emphasized the conditions for classifying the place of provision of services, focusing on the provision of goods and services in relation to them. The impugned order highlighted that while some chemicals were provided by clients, the services were not rendered in respect to these materials, leading to the rejection of the refund claims.2. The issue of whether the services provided by the appellant qualify as export of services was a key point of contention. The appellant argued that the services were consumed abroad by their foreign clients, and hence, constituted an export of services. The legal representatives cited specific provisions of the Place of Provisions of Service Rules, 2012, and relevant notes from the Service Tax Education Guide. The respondent relied on a previous tribunal decision upheld by the High Court, emphasizing that export of services remained tax-free even after certain notifications were rescinded and reinstated. The judgment reiterated the principles that services consumed abroad constitute export of services, and no service tax was leviable in such cases.3. The judgment involved a detailed interpretation of legal provisions and precedents to determine the taxability of the services provided. References were made to Circulars and Notifications issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs to clarify the tax treatment of export of services. The decision highlighted the destination-based consumption tax nature of service tax and the importance of consumption of services in determining tax liability. The judgment underscored that services consumed abroad were considered exports and were exempt from service tax, as clarified by the CBEC. The legal position was established based on the interpretation of relevant laws and judicial pronouncements, leading to the rejection of the appeal and disposal of stay petitions.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment provides insights into the key issues addressed, the legal arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.