TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeals) Service Tax-II, Mumbai Zone by which the learned Commissioner rejected all the eight (08) Appeals filed by the appellant and upheld the respective Orders-inOriginal impugned therein. Although there are eight Shows- Cause Notices as well the Orders-in-Original but since a common Order-in-Appeal has been passed by the learned Commissioner due to common issue in all the appeals, therefore, we are also inclined to decide all these appeals through this common order. 2. The issues involved herein are as under:- (i) Whether the services claimed to be advertising agency services, provided by the appellant from India through electronic media to their group companies/clients of its overseas group companies located out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Work Order (IWO) documents submitted by them and therefore the service provided by them is intermediary service which cannot be treated as export of service as per Rule 9 (c) of PoPS and accordingly is chargeable to service tax as per the provision of Section 66B of Finance Act, 1994 and the question of refunding of tax paid does not arise. It has also been observed by the Adjudicating Authority that otherwise also the service tax paid by the appellant have already been recovered by them from their clients and if any refund is granted then that would amount to unjust enrichment, therefore on that count also the refund is liable to be rejected. On Appeals filed by the appellant before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the same were dismi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 31.03.2016 ST/87336/2016 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the services provided by the appellant to its overseas group companies qualify as 'Advertising Agency Service'. According to learned counsel the appellant had obtained the service tax registration under the service category of 'Advertising Agency Service' and discharged service tax under the said category in their service tax returns for earlier period i.e. years 2009-10 to 2013-14 which were never disputed either by the concerned authorities or the audit. Learned counsel further submits that for the earlier period i.e. November, 2009 to June, 2012 refunds have been granted to them by orders of different dates of the respective Adjudicating Authorities b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the case records alongwith the written submissions and additional written submissions placed on record on behalf of the appellant. It is not in dispute that in these appeals, except Intercompany work order (IWOs)/Export invoices, no agreement or contract has been entered into between the parties. The entire case of the appellant is based on these documents only. As per practice, according to Appellant, the clients approach the overseas group of companies of the appellant who in turn subcontract the same to the appellant in India by way of IWOs/Invoices. It has been submitted by learned Counsel that for the earlier years i.e. April, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment where the facts are identical unless there is change in law. None of the authorities below have considered it proper to even address the submission on behalf of the appellant regarding the earlier orders of the Adjudicating Authority granting refund for the same service. That becomes relevant when no appeals have been preferred by the revenue against the said order. The Authorities below are free to reject the said submission, but at least some finding is required to be given. The revenue cannot be permitted to adopt an inconsistent stand in subsequent proceedings when the facts are identical unless they show that the law has changed but nothing of that sort has been attempted. 7. We place our reliance on the judgment of the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered by the appellant during earlier periods and during the period before us, remained unchanged. The authorities below have failed to base their decision of rejecting the refund claim on any change in law or circumstance, rather they ignored the said submission on behalf of the appellant. We are also aware of the fact that w.e.f. 1.7.2012 substantial changes by way of amendment have been affected in the Finance Act as well as in the Service Tax Rules and also various new Rules such as Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 etc. were brought into effect. We don't want to examine all these things at this stage of 2nd Appeal as we cannot adorn or function as the Adjudicating Authority to examine the said aspect at this stage. ....