2017 (6) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refore is entitled to claim refund. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent is registered since 12.06.2008 for rendering various taxable services. The respondent-assessee filed three refund claims under Notification No. 5/2006-CE dated 14.03.2006 claiming refund of unutilized cenvat credit which was taken on input services utilized for export of taxable services. The details of the claim filed by the assessee are given below: Sl. No. OIO No. Refund Amt. Claim period 1 04/2010 Rs. 52,16,278/- 07/08 09/08 2 447/2010 Rs. 99,12,750/- 10/08 03/09 3 787/2010 Rs. 93,38,399/- 04/09 09/09   By following the due process of issue of show-cause notice, the claims were disposed off....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tted that in terms of Rule 3(2) of Export of Service Rules, 2005, if the service is provided from India and used outside India and payment of such service is received in convertible Foreign Exchange, then only such service is treated as Export of Service. He further submitted that this condition has not been satisfied by the assessee inasmuch as the service was provided and used in India. The assessee is merely engaged in providing services to the foreign company and such services are rendered in India only. Thereby such taxable services are originating and are concluded in India and therefore are consumed in India. The mere fact that the assessee is receiving the consideration in foreign currency alone cannot determine the nature of taxabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s been rendered in India and it has been utilized, delivered in India and it is also used in India. The learned Advocate strongly argued that the understanding of the lower authority is not correct, the services have rightly been delivered abroad and they have been used by the Singapore Company. They relied on several case laws. They also stated that it should not be considered that the appellant and the company in Singapore are related, even though one is a subsidiary of the other, they are separate legal entities. They produced a large number of case laws on this subject. They also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Blue Star v. CCE vide Final Order No. 489/2008 dated 27-3-2008 (2008-TIOL-716-CESTAT-BANG), wherein....