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>Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on service tax exemption for export services.</h1> <h3>Solvay Specialities India Pvt Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-II</h3> Solvay Specialities India Pvt Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-II - TMI Issues involved:- Demand of service tax for sales promotion and marketing services provided outside India- Demand of service tax for sales promotion and marketing services received from foreign based agents under Reverse Charge basisIssue 1:The appellant argued that the sales promotion and marketing services provided in a foreign country to a foreign company, with payment received in foreign exchange, constitute export of service under Export of Service Rules. The appellant cited relevant case laws and Circular No. 111/5/2009-ST to support their position. The Tribunal examined Rule 3(1) of Export of Service Rules and concluded that the services provided by the appellant fall under the category of Export of Service, as the recipient was located outside India and payment was received in India. Citing a previous judgment, the Tribunal held that the services qualify as export of service and are not liable to service tax.Issue 2:Regarding the demand of service tax for sales promotion and marketing services received from foreign based agents, the appellant contended that they paid service tax and interest up to a certain date, and claimed exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009. The exemption was denied due to a procedural lapse of not mentioning invoice number in shipping bills. However, the Tribunal found that the input service received was meant for export of goods, and apart from the procedural lapse, there was no other violation of the notification. The Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to the exemption and set aside the demand. Additionally, the Tribunal decided that no penalty should be imposed on the appellant as they had paid the service tax, were entitled to Cenvat credit, and there was no malafide intention. Therefore, the penalty was set aside.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, ruling that the services provided by them qualified as export of service and were not liable to service tax. The demand under the Reverse Charge mechanism was set aside, and no penalty was imposed on the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
