TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngaged in the export of services under the head "Information Technology Software Services" in terms of Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 ("STR"). It has applied for refund of the Cenvat Credit on input services in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ("CCR"). The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the refund on the ground that the services rendered by the Appellant do not meet the criteria under Clause (f) of Rule 6A(1) of the STR inasmuch as it is an overseas branch office of Zaloni Inc. and are merely establishments of distinct persons in accordance with Explanation 3(b) of Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. The proceedings culminated into Orders-in-original which upheld the rejection of the refund on the followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accordance with Explanation 3(b) of Section 65B(44) of the Act. (ii) Determination of an entity as a separate legal entity depends upon the constitution of the entity and not on the key managerial persons. (iii) The Appellant is not extension of the head office (Zaloni Inc.) and cannot be classified as a Branch office. (iv) The nomenclature used in Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates ('FIRC') cannot be considered in determining that the amount received is not in respect of export of services. (v) The existence of the Appellant is not dependent on the termination of the agreement with Zaloni Inc. (vi) Impugned order passed without considering relevant documents produced during appellate proceedings, i.e. the revised FIRCs stati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nct person as per Item (b), explanation 3 of clause (44) of Section 65B of the Act, 1994, the petitioner No. 1 which is an establishment in India, which is a taxable territory and its 100% holding Company, which is the other company in non-taxable territory cannot be considered as establishments so as to treat as distinct persons for the purpose of rendering service. Therefore, the services rendered by the petitioner No. 1-Company outside the territory of India to its parent Company would have to be considered "export of service" as per Rule 6A of the Rules, 1994 and Clause (f) of Rule 6A of the Rules, 1994 would not be applicable in the facts of the case as the petitioner No. 1, who is the provider of service and its parent Company, who is....