2019 (3) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), CGST and CX., Mumbai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged inter alia, in providing taxable services under the category of "Banking and Other Financial Services" and "Business Support Services", defined under the Finance Act, 1994. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hority on the ground that the relationship between the companies recipient of service and the appellant are that of holding and subsidiary and as such, it cannot be said that the appellant had earned income from its group/holding company. The other ground assigned for rejection of the refund benefit is that the services provided by the appellant cannot be termed as export of service, as the servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and the service fee was received in convertible foreign exchange. Thus, it is his submission that use/utilization of service in India should not be the determining factor for deciding the issue, whether such service classifies as export under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. In this context, the Learned Consultant has relied on the order dated 10.02.2017 of this Tribunal passed in the case of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....artment to show that the appellant was the subsidiary company of the overseas service receiver. Thus, I am of the firm view that denial of refund benefit on the ground that appellant is subsidiary of the service receiver will stand for judicial scrutiny. 7. With regard to provision of service, it is an undisputed fact that appellant had entered into an agreement with the overseas service receiv....