Appeal granted for marketing services exported abroad, refund under Rule 5 of CCR 2004.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant's marketing services qualified as export of service under the rules. The services were provided to a Japanese manufacturer, utilized outside India, and paid for in foreign exchange. The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, granting the appellant a refund under Rule 5 of CCR 2004.

---

---

Issues:
Refund of service tax under Rule 5 of CCR 2004 rejected by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The appellant, providing marketing services as a commission agent to a Japanese manufacturer, filed a refund claim for the period 2008-09, which was partially allowed in the 2nd round of litigation. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected a portion of the claim, stating that the services provided were not export of service as they were used in India for Indian customers. The appellant contended that they did not provide after-sale services, only communicated complaints to the manufacturer in Japan, supported by a certificate from the manufacturer. The appellant argued that the benefit of the services accrued outside India, relying on CBEC circular and a Bombay High Court ruling.

The Tribunal considered the contentions and found that the appellant did not raise invoices for after-sale services but for marketing services, satisfying the conditions under the export of service rules, 2005. As the services were received by a party outside India and remittance was in convertible foreign exchange, the Tribunal held that the services were exported outside India. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to a refund under Rule 5 of CCR 2004. The Tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal and restored the original order, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.

---