Export of service turns on recipient location, while disclosed CENVAT credit defeats extended limitation and reduces penalty.

Marketing and administrative support services supplied to an overseas recipient were treated as export of service because the recipient was outside India and payment was received in convertible foreign exchange; the place of performance in India was irrelevant, so no service tax, interest or related penalty survived. CENVAT credit was also allowed because the availment was disclosed in ST-3 returns and supporting invoices were produced, making the extended period of limitation unavailable; the demand, interest and penalty on that count were set aside. The registration penalty under section 77(1)(a) was maintained only up to the statutory maximum of Rs. 10,000.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether marketing and administrative support services rendered to an overseas company qualified as export of service and were therefore not taxable in India; (ii) whether denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 6,96,493 was sustainable when the credit availment was disclosed in returns and the demand was raised by invoking the extended period; (iii) whether the penalty under section 77(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 required interference.

Issue (i): whether marketing and administrative support services rendered to an overseas company qualified as export of service and were therefore not taxable in India.

Analysis: The services were rendered under agreements with a foreign recipient located outside India, and the place where the activities were performed in India was held to be irrelevant for determining the recipient of service. For the positive list period, the conditions under Rule 3(1)(iii) and Rule 3(2) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 were satisfied because the recipient was outside India and payment was received in convertible foreign exchange. For the negative list period, the requirements under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 were also satisfied, including the location of the recipient outside India and receipt of payment in foreign exchange.

Conclusion: The services constituted export of service and no service tax was payable; the demand, interest and related penalty on this count were set aside.

Issue (ii): whether denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 6,96,493 was sustainable when the credit availment was disclosed in returns and the demand was raised by invoking the extended period.

Analysis: The credit was reflected in the statutory ST-3 returns, and the demand was founded on the alleged non-production of documents notwithstanding the disclosure already made. On that basis, invocation of the extended period of limitation was held to be unsustainable. The appellant had also produced supporting invoices and related records during audit and refund proceedings, which negated the basis for denial.

Conclusion: The denial of CENVAT credit was not sustainable and the corresponding demand, interest and penalty were set aside.

Issue (iii): whether the penalty under section 77(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 required interference.

Analysis: The appellant was liable to registration and return compliance even though the services were treated as export of service, and there was delay in obtaining registration. However, the statutory cap on penalty for such default limited the amount imposable.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld only to the extent of Rs. 10,000 and reduced from the amount originally imposed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded substantially, with the service tax demand and the CENVAT credit denial set aside, and the registration penalty reduced to the statutory maximum.

Ratio Decidendi: For export of service, the decisive factor is the location of the service recipient, not the place where the service is performed; disclosure in statutory returns defeats invocation of the extended period absent suppression.

---