TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal 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. The appellant avails Cenvat Credit of ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p 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 services were used by associated company for ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tible 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 the appellant itself. 4. On the other hand,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iary 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 receiver and pursuant to such agreement, had provided the....