2009 (2) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant had claimed rebate of Rs.1,00,71,975/- for the service tax paid on the commissions received for the business auxiliary services provided by them to M/s. Lenovo Singapore Pte Ltd., Singapore for the period from April 2005 to March 2006 in terms of rule 5 of the Export of Services Rules, 2005. They were issued a show cause notice proposing to deny the rebate claim as the impugned services were rendered in India and did not amount to export of services. The adjudicating authority in his order rejected the rebate claim on ground that the business auxiliary service is rendered by the appellant by way of promoting sale of the products of M/s. Lenovo, Singapore in India and as such the exemption available in terms of Export of Service....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Singapore. It is his submission that provisions of Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules as the appellant's office in India is to be considered as office of recipient of service, hence, the recipient is not located outside India. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant has rendered any service to a person located outside India during the period April 2005 to March 2006. 5.1 It is to be noted that there is no dispute that appellant has provided services to Lenovo Singapore and received sales commission on the orders procured and forwarding the same to principal in Singapore. Both the lower authorities have held that the exemption available in terms o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ower authority is not correct, the services have rightly been delivered abroad and they have been used by the Singapore Company. They relied on several case laws. They also stated that it should not be considered that the appellant and the company in Singapore are related, even though one is a subsidiary of the other, they are separate legal entities. They produced a large number of case laws on this subject. They also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Blue Star Vs. CCE vide Final Order 489/2008 dated 27.3.2008 = (2008-TIOL-716-CESTAT-BANG) wherein a similar situation was dealt with. The situation here also is similar. In this case, the Indian company is the principal and the Singapore Company is a subsidiary. The ....