2017 (10) TMI 810 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal upholds assessee's appeal in export service dispute

The Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (A)'s decision, upholding the order allowing the assessee's appeal and setting aside the ... Refund claim - export of services - Business Auxiliary Service - Held that: - there is no infirmity in the impugned order which is based upon the various decisions rendered by the Tribunal - reliance placed in the case of M/s. Blue Star Ltd. Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise [2008 (3) TMI 32 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that the orders are booked in India and after the orders are booked, the parties concerned directly get in touch with the foreign suppliers. Once the foreign suppliers export the goods to India and receive their payments, a commission is paid to the appellant. Thus, the appellant has satisfied the requirements of Export of Service Rules, 2005, and entitled for refund - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:Revenue's appeal against Commissioner (A)'s order allowing the assessee's appeal and setting aside the Order-in-Original.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the liability of the respondent-assessee to pay service tax on an amount received for promoting goods in India. The Revenue contended that the service provided fell under Business Auxiliary Service and was chargeable to service tax. The respondent initially paid the service tax but later claimed a refund, arguing that the service rendered qualified as export of service under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The Revenue rejected the refund claim, imposed penalties, and alleged suppression. The Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue.The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (A)'s order was contrary to the Export of Service Rules, 2005, as the service was provided in India for the promotion of the holding company's products. They contended that there was no export of service and that the recipients were in India. They also claimed that the assessee failed to provide evidence supporting the export of service.On the other hand, the counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order, citing previous Tribunal decisions that supported the view that the services rendered qualified as export of service. They highlighted a Division Bench decision in the assessee's own case where a refund was allowed on similar grounds.The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and examining the records, upheld the impugned order. They found no fault in the Commissioner (A)'s decision, which was based on previous Tribunal rulings and supported by the Division Bench's decision in the assessee's case. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (A).