TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been assailed in this appeal filed by M/s. Baheti Agri Links the Appellant. 2. It transpires from the records that the appellant provides "business auxiliary service" BAS as a commission agent of foreign parties to enable them to sell their goods to Indian customers/clients. The appellant belived that in such a situation the services rendered by the appellant would be 'export of service' and, therefore, exempted from payment of service tax. 3. However, a show cause notice dated August 17, 2015 was issued to the appellant. The notice alleges that though the appellant has provided BAS by working as a commission agent of foreign parties to facilitate them to import goods to Indian customers and has received foreign convertible currenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....end of their client in india. For the services rendered the foreign clients have paid the commission to the noticee in foreign convertible currency and the noticee have received remuneration/commission through Reserve Bank of India in Rupees. The end user of service being located in India and need of such customers/ Indian clients being met by the assessee for and on behalf of its foreign principal, such services have been provided and consumed in India and therefore it is not export of service. xxx xxx xxx 10. From the above it appears that the Noticee have not discharged levilability of service tax to the tune of Rs. 2,06,363/- on the amount of commission received by them and have wrongly shown the said figures in ST-3 r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the appellant failed to substantiate that the services were rendered to a foreign client is clearly contrary to the facts mentioned in the show cause notice. Learned chartered accountant also pointed out that the issue involved in this appeal has now been answered by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Arcelor Mittal Stainless (I) P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Service Tax, Mumbai II Reference in Service Tax Appeal No. 88483 of 2014 decided on 09.06.2023. 8. Ms. Jaya Kumari, learned authorized representative, appearing for the department has, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that as the appellant had failed to produce evidence, the Commissioner (Appeals) committed no illegality in dismissing the appeal. 9. The s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l mills situated outside India. For procuring sale orders for the products manufactured by the foreign mills from customers in India, the requests of prospective customers identified by Arcelor India is forwarded to the foreign mills who, thereafter, directly get in touch with the Indian customer to determine the terms and conditions and execute a contract after which the goods are supplied by the foreign mills directly to the Indian customers. For this provision of service, Arcelor India receives consideration from Arcelor France in convertible foreign exchange. Thus, there exists a relationship of service provider and service recipient between Arcelor India and Arcelor France. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 49. It is, therefore, clea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reference order have been dealt with extensively and as they are intermingled, the reference is answered in the following manner: (i) Arcelor India, a service provider, is providing BAS service to Arcelor France, which is a service recipient. Arcelor India is, therefore, providing service to Arcelor France which is situated outside India and Arcelor India receives consideration in convertible foreign exchange. The service provided by Arcelor India is, therefore, delivered outside India and used outside India as is the requirement under the 2005 Export Rules prior to 01.03.2007 and Arcelor India provides services from India which are used outside India as is the requirement after 01.03.2007. It cannot, therefore, be doubted that....