https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446696 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal regarding export of services classification. The revenue department had confirmed demand arguing that services provided from India were consumed domestically by Indian customers, thus not qualifying as export of services under Rule 3(2)(a) of Export of Service Rules. The Tribunal relied on coordinate bench decisions in Orbit Research Associates case and larger bench ruling in Arcelor Mittal case, along with Bombay HC decision in A.T.E. Enterprises case, holding that the appellant's services qualified as export of services and were not liable for service tax under Business Auxiliary Service category. The impugned order was set aside. en-us Fri, 08 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Dec 2023 18:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446696 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal regarding export of services classification. The revenue department had confirmed demand arguing that services provided from India were consumed domestically by Indian customers, thus not qualifying as export of services under Rule 3(2)(a) of Export of Service Rules. The Tribunal relied on coordinate bench decisions in Orbit Research Associates case and larger bench ruling in Arcelor Mittal case, along with Bombay HC decision in A.T.E. Enterprises case, holding that the appellant's services qualified as export of services and were not liable for service tax under Business Auxiliary Service category. The impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 08 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446696