Tribunal rules services performed outside India exempt from service tax.

The Tribunal found that the demand for clearing and forwarding agency services from July 2008 onwards was not justifiable as the services were performed entirely outside India, falling outside the service tax liability per Rule 3(ii) of the Taxation of Services Rules. Previous orders and legislative intent supported this decision, leading to the impugned order being set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per the law.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issue involves the demand raised on the appellant for the period from July 2008 onwards under the category of clearing and forwarding agency services.

Summary:

Issue 1: Demand raised on the appellant for the period from July 2008 onwards under the category of clearing and forwarding agency services

The appellant was paying Service Tax on clearing and forwarding services for goods manufactured and exported until June 2008. However, they stopped paying Service Tax from July 2008 based on the exclusion in Rule 3 of the Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006. A Show Cause Notice was issued in 2011, leading to Order-in-Original No. 136/2012 confirming the demands. The appellant appealed to the First Appellate Authority, which also upheld the demands, prompting the current appeal.

Issue 1 Details:
The appellant argued that previous orders from the same Bench of CESTAT had settled the issue in their favor, citing specific cases. The Revenue, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, relied on lower authorities' findings. The main contention was whether the demand for clearing and forwarding agency services from July 2008 onwards was justifiable.

Upon hearing both sides and reviewing previous orders, the Tribunal found that the services were performed entirely outside India, even though the sale proceeds were collected in India. Rule 3(ii) of the Taxation of Services Rules was highlighted, which aims to encourage exports and foreign exchange remittances. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's advocate that the activity falls outside the service tax liability as per Rule 3(ii). Citing previous judgments and the legislative intent, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.

In conclusion, the demand confirmed in the impugned Order-in-Appeal was deemed unsustainable, leading to its setting aside and allowing the appeal with any consequential benefits as per the law.

---