TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee for levy of unpaid tax on commission earned by arranging charter of vessels operated by their clients overseas, i.e. consortium of M/s. Valentine Maritime Gulf LLC and M/s Sinori Marine Company Ltd, to M/s ONGC Ltd and M/s Shipping Corporation of India. The notice demanded payment of Rs. 60,06,811/- on the consideration earned between 2004-05 to 2008-09 as provider of 'business auxiliary service' as defined in section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 and taxed under section 65 (105)(zzb) of finance Act, 1994. 2. It was alleged that this amount was received in Indian currency from the Indian entities who discharged their contractual payments to the overseas entities after deducting the commission payable to the notice. In the impugned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2008 (11) STR 156 (Tri.-Del.)] which considered a similar transaction and accorded the benefit of refund arising in consequence of the exemption under rule 4 of Export of Service Rules, 2005. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Nipuna Services Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Hyderabad [2009 (14) STR 706 (Tri.-Bang.)] and on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JB Boda & Co Pvt Ltd v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [(1997) 223 ITR 271 (SC)]. 5. Furthermore, it is the claim of the appellant that though the show cause notice had demanded tax on the ground that the consideration has not been received in convertible foreign currency, the adjudicating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e their clients and not with Indian entities who may have acted on behalf of the overseas entities to remit the commission. Having confirmed the service as taxable under section 65 (zzb), rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 relates the activity of export to location of the recipient of service. Moreover, the notice has not demanded tax on this ground. The conclusion of the adjudicating authority that the services were rendered within India is of no consequence in determination of tax liability. 8. The decision of the Tribunal in re ETA Travel Agency Pvt Ltd is a consequence of the finding that the clients of the service are within India and hence not applicable. It cannot, therefore, by any stretch of imagination be held that the activ....