At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ASHOK K. ARYA
For Petitioner: D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate And For Respondents: V.R. Reddy, Asstt. Commissioner (AR)
1. The appellant is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-SVTAX-002-APP-357-16-17, dated 8-8-2016, whereunder refund claim of Rs. 2,90,265/- filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 citing Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (NT), dated 18-6-2012 has been rejected. Both sides represented by learned Counsels, Shri D.H. Nadkami for the appellant and Shri V.R. Reddy for the Revenue have been heard.
1.1 Learned Counsel for the appellant pleads that impugned order wrongly invokes provisions of Export of Services Rules, 2005, when such rules had already been rescinded by Notification No. 28/2012-Service Tax, dated 20-6-2012 and they were no longer in existence for the relevant period of the present facts i.e. April, 2013 to June, 2013. Learned Advocate also pleads that under the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, the recipient of their service being located outside India i.e. in Denmark, their services would be covered under the category of 'export of service' as per the provisions of Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
1.2 Learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
2. After careful consideration of the facts of the case and the submissions of both sides, it appears that the appellant fulfills the conditions mentioned under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the subject services are covered as 'export of service', when:-
(i) the appellant is a provider of service and is located in India;
(ii) the recipient of service is located in Denmark i.e. outside India;
(iii) when the service is not covered by negative list of services provided under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994;
(iv) when the place of removal of service as per Rule 3 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 is outside India;
(v) Payment of such service has been received in convertible foreign exchange;
(vi) provider of service and recipient of service are separate establishments and di
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
fferent legal entities having the legal agreement on the subject matter with each other. 2.1 Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any to the appellant.