TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 772
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3/2013 10/2012 to12/2012 Amount claimed Rs.1,16,52,347/- Rs.87,71,973/- Rs.1,03,11,936/- Amount allowed in OIO -- Rs.80,08,858/- Rs.91,92,705/- Amount allowed further in OIA Rs.97,97,998/- Rs.67,49,740/- Rs.80,17,982/- Amount in appeal before Tribunal Rs.18,54,349/- Rs.20,22,233/- Rs.22,93,954/- Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is identical, all the three appeals are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in appeal No.St/21298/2016 are taken. 2. The appellants are engaged in providing Information Technology Software Services (ITSS), Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) and is a 100 % software export oriented unit registered with the STPI for export of ITSS. AMD ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ftware development service to its holding company under the Master Services Agreement which is categorized as ITSS and also providing marketing support services to its associated company under the Master Services Agreement categorized under BAS. He further submitted that the appellant is providing marketing support services for certain of its associated enterprise and it does not facilitate purchase or sale but merely assisted in promoting the product and other connected activities for AMD products in India. AMD India's marketing support services involved activities including meeting with original equipment manufacturers, providing training on AMD products, holding events or trade shows etc. and the sales and marketing support services ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....finition of export of service under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. He further submitted that the nature of services rendered by the appellant are nothing other than consulting engineering service and marketing support services which are not classifiable as intermediary. He also submitted that the definition of intermediary amended only from 10/2014 to include facilitating the sale of goods. He also submitted that the burden of proof is on the Department to prove that the company has facilitated the sale of goods. He also submitted that the services provided are principle to principle basis and not on behalf of the group company. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Paul Merchants Limited Vs. CCE, C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ided with respect to buyer in India, the benefit of the same accrued to the company abroad. Further the case laws relied upon by the appellant are applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further I find that in the case of Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal has held that promoting sale of goods of foreign client in India being BAS fulfills the conditions under Export of Service Rules, 2005 and qualifies as export of service. Similarly in the case of KSH International Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held as under:- The denial of refund of service tax to the appellant under Rule 5 ibid is contrary to the express provisions of law as clarified in CBEC Circular No.111/5/2009-ST dt. 24/02/2009. The Board, in respect of ....