Export of services upheld under Rule 3; no intermediary under Rule 2(f), service tax demand fully quashed

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CESTAT held that the services rendered by the appellant in India to its foreign principals, X-Germany and X-China, constituted export of services under the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. Applying Rule 3, the Tribunal held that the place of provision was the location of the service recipients, i.e., Germany and China, as the appellant provided services on its own account and did not qualify as an "intermediary" under Rule 2(f) during the relevant period. Supply of goods by X-Germany and X-China to Indian buyers was outside the then-prevailing scope of "intermediary services." As the Finance Act, 1994 did not extend outside India, the services were not exigible to service tax. The demand of tax, interest, and penalties was set aside and the appeal was allowed.....