TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 780
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorised Representative. PER: P. ANJANI KUMAR The appellants, M/s Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., are engaged in providing Marketing Support Services under an agreement entered with Microsoft Operations PTE Ltd., Singapore; the appellant is not engaged in direct selling of the products belonging to Microsoft, Singapore which are dealt by Microsoft Singapore through independent third-party distributors in India; the appellants are paid on the cost-plus basis for the services rendered to the foreign entity; the appellants, claiming that the said services are exports, filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,77,01,623/- under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules; 80 per cent of the eligible refund was sanctioned to the appellants, vide two orders d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be satisfied i.e. (i) The Recipient should be located outside India; (ii) Such service should be delivered outside India and used outside India; and (iii) Payment for such service provided outside India is received by the service provider in convertible foreign exchange; it is admitted that the conditions with respect to Recipient being located outside India and receipt of consideration in foreign exchange is not disputed; the only dispute is with respect to (i) used outside India (ii) delivered outside India and (iii) provided outside India. 3. Learned Counsel further submits that the Appellant is engaged in carrying out marketing support services with respect to products sold by Microsoft Singapore from Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....required to be paid from 03 months of the date of application and that interest on belated refund is a statutory mandate of law. He relies on the following cases: • Union of India vs Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories, 2016 (333) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.) • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) • Manisha Pharmo Plast Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, 2020 (374) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) • Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, 2016 (342) E.L.T. 17 (Bom.) • Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 2016 (338) E.L.T. 670 (Bom.) • Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, 2021 (50) G.S.T.L. 269 (Bom.) 6. Shri Ajay Jain, learned Special Counsel for the D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot liable to Service Tax. 50. In a recent decision the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro [Misc. Order No. 59225-59226/13, dated 9-9-2013] [2013 (32) S.T.R. 410 (T)] held that a majority decision is Larger Bench decision having the same binding criteria as that of Larger Bench. If that be so, the majority decision in the case of Paul Merchant is required to be followed. 51. Even otherwise also, I find that the disputed service is the service being provided by the appellant to his principal located in Singapore. The marketing operations done by the appellant in India cannot be said to be at the behest of any Indian customer. The service being provided may or may not result in any sales of the product in Indian soil. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng export services under the Export of Services Rules, 2005. The said decision stand subsequently followed by the Tribunal in the case of CESTAT, Mumbai v. Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, Mumbai [2014-TIOL-1064-CESTAT-Mum]. Business Auxiliary services provided by the assessee to their members located outside India by marketing their product in India was held to be export of services inasmuch as the service was held to be provided to the foreign located person who was also paying to the assessee on such services in convertible foreign exchange. ----- 54. In view of the above, the difference of opinion on various points is resolved as under : (i) That the Business Auxiliary Services of promotion of market i....