TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 580
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged import of Business Support Services by the appellant from foreign representative office. 2. Briefly stated, the factual matrix of the case is that Simon India Limited, a 100% owned subsidiary of Zuari Global Limited is engaged in the field of basic and detailed engineering and project management and, therefore, undertakes the execution of project outside India i.e. Saudi Arabia. The appellant has established an extended arm/representative office in Saudi Arabia so as to undertake proper execution of the projects abroad, including the activities of contract implementation, tender participation, liaison with the local authorities, etc. The nature of arrangement between the appellant and the representative office is such that contracts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Support Services" as specified under Section 65(105)(zzzq) of the Act read with Section 65(104c) of the Act. On adjudication, the impugned order although held that the activity carried out by the representative office is service to self and also that there is no separate revenue of the representative office, confirmed the proposed demand in its entirety. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Tribunal. 4. Both the sides have agreed that the issue is no longer res integra and has been decided in series of decisions referred to by the appellant and, therefore, no service tax can be levied on the transactions in the present case. 5. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e pre-conditions for levy of service tax, which requires the presence of two persons and also the element of 'consideration'. In absence of two separate persons, the service, if any, would be deemed to have been provided by one to self on which no service tax can be fastened. 7. For the sake of reference, we would like to refer to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.[ 2015(39)STR 97(Tri.-Ahmd.)], where similar issue was examined and it was held as under:- "Section 66A(1) above is talking of service provider and service recipient as 'persons' which has to mean as different business persons. Section 66A (2) and its Explanation I only make a clarification and to fix service tax liability....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T NEW DELHI] 16. Kusum Healthcare Private Limited Vs. CCE, [Alwar 2023 (3) TMI 173- CESTAT New Delhi Affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 9.7.2024] 17. KPIT Cummins Infosystems Limited v. Commissioner [2014 (33) STR 105 (Tri-Mum)] 18. Kusum Healthcare Private Limited Vs. CCE, Alwar, [2018 (7) TMI 919- CESTAT New Delhi] 19. Kusum Healthcare Private Limited Vs. CCE, Jaipur-1 [2018 (2) TMI 1408- CESTAT New Delhi] 20. Kusum Healthcare Private Limited Vs. CCE, Alwar [2021 (10)TMI 229 -CESTAT-New Delhi] 21. Kusum Healthcare Private Limited vs. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Alwar [2025 (4) TMI 1116-CESTAT New Delhi] 22. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the representative office. Since the expenditure incurred by the representative office are reimbursed by the appellant, the same cannot be considered to be the value of services rendered by the representative office. The learned Counsel has drawn a distinction to say that there is no agreed consideration charged by the representative office for carrying out their alleged activities and it is only claiming the reimbursement of various expenses incurred by it. Thus, there is no separate specified 'consideration' charged for providing the services in question. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2013 (9) STR 9 (Delhi)] struck down the provisions of Rule 5(1) of Servic....