TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the same proceed, on which they have received the commission of Rs. 28,61,638/- during the period April, 2008 to October, 2008 and Rs. 1,11,116/- during the period November, 2008 to March, 2009. Show-cause notices dated 13.05.2009 and 21.01.2010, were issued, which culminated in two adjudication orders, wherein the demand of service tax was confirmed along with interest and penalties of equal amounts were imposed under section 76 and 78 and also imposed a penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Assessee preferred the appeal before the lower appellate authority. The Additional Director General, DGTS, KZU, Kolkata, vide Order-in- Appeal No.86-88/SKS/Bol/ST/2017-18 dated 19.03.2018, upheld the demand of service tax and also u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 24.02.2009, which is a clarificatory circular. He also refers to the various decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court in support of his contentions, which are as under : (i) Yamazaki Mazak India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Pune I : 2018 (12) GSTL 66 (Tri.-Mumbai) ' (ii) CST, Mumbai VI Vs. ATE Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. : 2018 (8) GSTL 123 (Bom.).. 3. The ld.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Department, justified the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. I find that the appellants have received commission from its parent entity, M/s Stollberg, GMBH, Germany for rendering their services in India in respect of marketing, procurement of order, sales, realization. The issue is no more res-integra in vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not have any branch or project or business establishment in India. The service in relation to procurement of goods being provided by the appellant are entirely meant for M/s. GAP, U.S.A. and the service in question, - business auxiliary service, covered by Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 have obviously been used by M/s. GAP, U.S.A. in relation to their business located abroad. Therefore these services have to be treated as delivered outside India and used outside India and since payment for the service has been received in convertible foreign exchange, the same would have to be treated as exported out of India. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner is an absurd order contrary to the provisions of Export of Serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provided within the country. It is this finding and conclusion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been applied by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The view taken by the Tribunal therefore, 25. cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If the emphasis is on consumption of service then, the order passed by the Tribunal does not raise any substantial question of law." 9. The Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai v. Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (38) S.T.R. 1121 (Bom.)] held that "the observations reported in 2014 (34) S.T.R. 554 (Bom.) (supra) aptly apply in the present case. The situation shows that the consideration ....