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>Investment advisory services to overseas group companies qualify as export under Rule 3(2)(a) Export of Service Rules 2005</h1> <h3>Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-V, Mumbai</h3> Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-V, Mumbai - TMI The issues presented and considered in this legal judgment are as follows:1. Whether non-binding investment advisory services provided by the appellants qualify as export of service under Rule 3(2)(a) of the Export of Service Rule, 2005.2. Whether the appellants are entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on input services such as rent-a-cab service, outdoor catering service, and air travel agent service.Issue-wise detailed analysis:Issue 1:- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The appellants argued that their non-binding investment advisory services fall under category (iii) services as per Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court considered Circulars issued by the CBEC which clarified that services used outside India, where the benefit accrues to overseas entities, qualify as export of service.- Key evidence and findings: The appellants had agreements with overseas entities for providing services, and payments were received in foreign exchange.- Application of law to facts: The court relied on the interpretation of 'used outside India' and the benefit accruing to overseas entities to determine the classification of services as export.- Conclusions: The court held that the benefit of service accruing outside India qualifies the service as export, in line with the ruling in Arcelor Mittal Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. case.Issue 2:- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The appellants claimed that the disputed input services were used for providing output services and should qualify as 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the appellants had stated that the disputed services were utilized for output services, and the denial of Cenvat Credit was based on lack of documentary evidence.- Key evidence and findings: The appellants argued that the disputed services were essential for their business operations.- Application of law to facts: The court considered the nature of the services and the purpose for which they were used by the appellants.- Conclusions: The court held that since the disputed services were used for business purposes and contributed to providing output services, they should qualify as 'input service' and the denial of Cenvat Credit was unfounded.Significant holdings:- The court referred to Circulars by the CBEC and the ruling in Arcelor Mittal Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. case to establish that services benefiting overseas entities qualify as export.- The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.In conclusion, the court determined that the non-binding investment advisory services provided by the appellants qualified as export of service and that the appellants were entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the disputed input services. The judgment was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, precedents, and the specific circumstances of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
