TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al No: 41536 of 2016 (Flower Knitting Mills); (xii) Service Tax Appeal No: 41537 of 2016 (Flower Knitting Mills); (xiii) Service Tax Appeal No: 41819 of 2016 (Clifton Exports P Ltd); (xiv) Service Tax Appeal No: 42493 of 2016 (Clifton Exports P Ltd); (xv) Service Tax Appeal No: 41085 of 2017 (Fashion Knits); (xvi) Service Tax Appeal No: 42048 of 2017 (Best Corporation P Ltd); (xvii) Service Tax Appeal No: 42049 of 2017 (Clifton Exports P Ltd); (xviii) Service Tax Appeal No: 42110 of 2017 (NSP Knitting Mills); (xix) Service Tax Appeal No: 42111 of 2017 (NSP Knitting Mills); (xx) Service Tax Appeal No: 42113 of 2017 (Royal Classic Mills P Ltd); and (xxi) Service Tax Appeal No: 42258 of 2017 (Fashion Knits) ORDER Appeal against order-in-original no. 34/2014-Commr dated 26th December 2014 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Coimbatore pertains to fee charged by M/s Amsco Finance Ltd for 'third part payments' for exports effected by M/s AKR Textiles to buyer outside India. The arrangement between M/s C& A Buying, Germany, the overseas customer of appellant, and M/s Amsco Finance Ltd, agent of the entity in Germany, was for the latter to make payment to all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....L (Rs.) Bank (Rs.) 1 ST/40 433/2015 AKR Textiles 34/20 14 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2013 4745656 4930711 551986 5490635 2 ST/40558/2015 Poppys Knit wear P Ltd 33/2014 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2013 75753694 4015690 8280463 435990 3 ST/41156/2015 Best Corporation P Ltd 106-2015 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2013 22161771 5790342 2391741 632710 4 ST/42499/2015 NSP Knitting Mills 144-2015 2009 -10 to 2011- 12 - 12860376 - 1324620 5 ST/40057/2016 SCM Garments P Ltd. 175- 15 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2013 4436189 7024606 456927 770928 6 ST/40065/2016 Flower Knitting Mills 179/2015 2009 -2013 9378673 3165557 1025690 347757 7 ST/40066/2016 Priyaa Knit Fabs 191- 15 2009 -10 to 2012- 13 6825137 10647951 806971 1182307 8 ST/40107/2016 Phoenix 145-15 2009 -10 to 2012- 13 3432858 5927920 353854 637412 9 ST/40111 /2016 SNQS Inter-national 192-15 2009 -10 to 2011- 12 6278940 2983254 697084 328392 10 ST/40....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation orders that, irrefutably, placed the impugned deductions by the overseas entities squarely within the tax net. 5. It has been pointed out that the levy of tax on charges deducted by overseas banks, in identical situation, has been held by the Tribunal, in Rogini Garments and ors v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Coimbatore [final order no. 41819-41832/2017 dated 29th August 2017], to be unsustainable in law. On perusal of the said order at '6. The case of the department is that when the foreign bank deducts the charges towards transfer of foreign exchange to the Indian bank, since the same Is deducted from the sale proceeds, it is a service rendered by the foreign bank to the appellants and that there is a service provider and service recipient relationship between the foreignbank and the appellant. It is to be noted that the foreign bank deducts such charges and transfers the foreign exchange to the Indian bank from where the appellant receives the money. The foreign bank in which the overseas buyer deposits the sale proceeds is chosen by the foreign buyer and not by the appellant, who is situated in India. By no stretch of imagination ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... narrated in the impugned order clearly indicate that it is the ING Vyasa Bank who had paid the charges to the foreign bank. In view of this, the appellant cannot be treated as service recipient and no Service Tax can be charged from them under Section 66A read with Rule 2(l)(2)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Moreover, we also find that in Appellant's own case for the previous period similar order had been passed by the original adjudicating authority and on appeal being filed against the same, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide order-in-appeal dated 12-11-2008 has set aside that order and as per the appellant's counsel, no appeal has been filed against that order, in view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the appeal is allowed." 7. We have to say that the decision relied upon by the Id. AR in the case of Lupin Ltd. (supra), was rendered on 12.2,2013 which is much before the clarification issued by the Trade Notice and also the decision in the case of Greenply. Industries (supra). Therefore, following the judicial discipline in the case of Greenply Industries (supra), and the facts being identical, the levy of service tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terated what was already stated and quoted in Issue 1 discussion. The argument put forth were already considered and were rejected as not tenable. From the records available and as per the legal position and in view of the clarification given in the CBEC Education Guide, para 5.3.3, M/s. AKR Textile are receiving the Banking and Financial service rendered by M/s Amsco Finance Ltd., and they are person who is making the payment of service fee for the service received. M/s C& A is neither receiving the service of M/s Amsco Finance Ltd nor paying the payment. It is M/s. AKR Textile (who are having a permanent establishment in the taxable territory) who are making the payment actually, hence, they are liable to pay service tax under Section 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the receipt of service from the non-taxable territory to the taxable territory i.e. in India. Further it Is held that it is not the mere transfer of money is involved the issue to attract the negative list . What M/s. AKR Textile is receiving the comprehensive Banking and Financial Service with effect from 1.7.2012 i.e. as stated earlier processing of export Invoices, making the prompt payment through assistance o....