TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f service tax demand alongwith imposition of penalties by the Original Authority. The Revenue is aggrieved by the finding in the impugned order with reference to benefit granted by applying formula prescribed under Rule 6 (3D) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/assessee is engaged in trading of goods in India and were also providing various services to M/s Sumitomo entities worldwide. They were registered with the Service Tax Department under various categories of taxable services. After audit of their accounts by the officers of the Department, the Revenue entertained a view that the appellant/assessee did not discharge service tax liability on some of their activities and did not follow th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verseas entities. Apart from these activities they also provided information on business potential of various sectors and industries in India; provided assistance while submitting bids for the projects in India and facilitated communication with customers with regard to Yen-credit fund scheme of foreign entity. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that these services were qualified as export under the Export of Service Rules, 2005 and no service tax is payable by the appellant/assessee. 4. The learned Counsel elaborated the applicable legal provisions under Export of Service Rules, 2005 during the relevant period and submitted that the services provided by appellant/assessee falls under third category and in such cases when the serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es was also paid by the said foreign entities in convertible foreign exchange. Therefore, the services rendered by the appellants are squarely covered by the Export of Service Rules and there is no service tax liability on them. The learned Counsel for the appellant/assessee relied on various case laws which are mentioned and discussed later in this order. 6. Regarding reversal of Cenvat credit on input services attributable to trading activities undertaken by the appellant/ assessee the learned Counsel for appellant/assessee submitted that the appeal by Revenue is without merit during the material time. There is no specific provision regarding quantification of amounts liable to be reversed in terms of Rule 6 (3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ility as provided during the relevant period. Accordingly, he submitted that the Original Authority should not have adopted the formula available in 2011 for the period prior to the issued of Notification 13/2011 - CE (NT) dated 31/03/2011. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. On the first two issues relating to liability of appellant/ assessee for service tax under the category of BAS we note that the service tax liability and the activities similar to the ones undertaken by the appellant/assessee were subject matter of decision by the Tribunal in earlier cases. In Paul Merchants Ltd. (supra) it is recorded that Export of Service Rules, 2005 are in accordance with Apex Court's ruling to the effect that service t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....moting market for foreign entities in India this will amount to export of service. 9. In view of the settled position of law as discussed above, we find no merit in the impugned order in so far it confirms the demand against the appellant under BAS. 10. Regarding the third issue with reference to quantification of amount to be reversed from Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 6 (3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, we note that impugned order discussed the issue in detail and held that in terms of Explanation 1 (c) under Rule 6 (3D) of Cenvat Credit Rules the quantification can be made. Accordingly, the value of exempted service was arrived at by the Original Authority as difference between sale price and cost of goods sold or 10% of the cost of goods ....