News Update

Maneka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 97 Cr and files nomination papers from SultanpurGlobal Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemST - Appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by EPF & MP Act, and the Constitution of India, as per Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST , services provided under Statutory obligations are not taxable: CESTATKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamI-T - Scrutiny assessment order cannot be assailed where assessee confuses it with order passed pursuant to invocation of revisionary power u/s 263: HCHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningI-T - Assessment order invalidated where passed in rushed manner to avoid being hit by impending end of limitation period: HCColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashI-T - Additions framed on account of bogus purchases merits being restricted to profit element embedded therein, where AO has not doubted sales made out of such purchases: HCIndia to host prestigious 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative MeetingI-T - Miscellaneous Application before ITAT delayed by 1279 days without any just causes or bona fide; no relief for assessee: HCAdani Port & SEZ secures AAA RatingI-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment made in REC Bonds, provided both investments were made within period of six months as prescribed u/s 54EC: ITATNominations for Padma Awards 2025 beginsI-T - PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 when there is no case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of AO: ITATMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDOI-T - If purchases & corresponding sales were duly matched, it cannot be said that same were made out of disclosed sources of income: ITATViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockI-T - Reopening of assessment is invalid as while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, AO has not thoroughly examined materials available in his own record : ITAT
 
ST - Commission received is for services provided by appellant to their foreign principal who have paid in convertible foreign exchange - appellant have exported services and are not liable to pay service tax: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

ALLAHABAD, SEPT 20, 2016: A Service Tax demand of Rs.2,29,21,508/- was confirmed against the appellant along with interest and equivalent penalty.

The issue is whether services provided by the appellant as commission agent for sale of goods of its foreign principal M/s Barco Control Rooms GMBH, Germany on their behalf is to be treated as export of services under Rule 3 of Export of Services Rules, 2005 during the period01.04.2006 to 31.03.2011.

The appellant is negotiating with the prospective customers of Barco, Germany and procuring the orders from the customers in India. For this purpose, the appellant interacts and liaises with the customers in India by explaining the details of the product of Barco, Germany and ensures that the customers place purchase order on Barco, Germany. Thereafter, Barco, Germany exports the goods from Germany to the customers in India and raises the invoices directly on the customers. The appellant then raises the invoices for its commission on Barco, Germany. The commission is based on an agreed percentage of the value of goods sold and the same is paid by Barco, Germany in convertible foreign currency.

Before the CESTAT, the appellant submitted that the issue is no more res-integra and the same is covered in their favour by the C.B.E.C Circular No.111/5/2009/ST dated 24.02.2009 and also by the Tribunal ruling in Paul Merchant Ltd. -2012-TIOL-1877-CESTAT-DEL and Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-1964-CESTAT-DEL.

The Bench observed that the issue is squarely covered by the precedent ruling of the Tribunal in the case of Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd. (supra). After adverting to and extracting the relevant portions of the C.B.E.C. Circular No.111/5/2009-, S.T. dated 24.02.2009, the Bench observed thus -

++ As per the law explained by the C.B.E.C. and the example quoted therein, it is explicit the services provided by the appellant is to their foreign principal who have paid for such services in convertible foreign exchange. Accordingly, we hold that appellant has satisfied both the conditions under the Rule 3 of Export of Services Rules of 2005. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant have exported the services in question and they are not liable to pay service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.

The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

(See 2016-TIOL-2454-CESTAT-ALL)


POST YOUR COMMENTS