Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2010-11/1030

Service is provided from India and the foreign party makes sales of its products in India but the benefit accrues outside India – whether export of service is involved
Case: M/s Fanuc India Pvt Ltd v/s CCE & ST, Bangalore
 
Citation: 2010-TIOL-1645-CESTAT-BANG
 
Issue:- When service is provided from India and the foreign party makes sales of its products in India but the benefit accrues outside India – whether export of service is involved?
 
Brief Facts:- Appellant had entered two agreements with M/s Fanuc Ltd., Japan. In terms of the first agreement, appellant was to provide marketing and sales promotion in respect of the contract products of FANUC, Japan, in India. FANUC, Japan, manufactured and sold CNC systems, cell controllers and CNC automatic programming systems in India. Appellant received commission for the services rendered. Appellant also rendered Maintenance or repair services in respect of the contract products.
 
The Commissioner (A) held that appellanthad rendered services classifiable under the category Business Auxiliary Service & Maintenance and Repair Service during the respective material period 15.03.2005 to 17.04.2006. The Commissioner confirmed demand of service tax under Business Auxiliary Services & as regards the Maintenance & repair services and held that during the material period to qualify for export services had to be delivered outside India and used outside India. In the instant case, Maintenance and Repair Service was delivered and consumed in India.
 
Hence, appellant is before the Tribunal.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The Tribunal held that withregard to the marketing and sales service rendered in India in respect of products manufactured and exported by a foreign client, the CBEC has clarified that such services had to be treated as export since the beneficiary of such services was based abroad.
 
The Tribunal relied upon the judgment in the case of M/s IBM India (Pvt.) Ltd. v/s CCE, Bangalore [2009-TIOL-2441-CESTAT-BANG] wherein on similar issue it was held that the impugned BAS services have to be treated as exports and the impugned demand denying the benefit of export to those services involved is not sustainable. It was held that the meaning of the term ‘used outside India’ has to be understood in the context of the characteristics of a particular category of service as mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 3. It was further held that for Category III service [Rule 3 (1) (iii)], it is possible that export of service may take place even when all the relevant activities take place in India so long as the benefits of these services accrue outside India.
 
Accordingly, it was held that prima facie the impugned BAS have to be treated as exports and the impugned demand denying the benefit of export to those services involved in not sustainable.
 
 
As regards MRS, it was held that the demand pertains to the period 15.03.2005 to 17.04.2006. During this period, for services to constitute export, the following conditions to be satisfied: -
 
  1. Services physically performed outside India partly or completed;
  2. Such services delivered outside India;
  3. Such services used in business or for any other purpose outside India; and
  4. Payment for such service provided is received by the service provider convertible foreign exchanges.
 
It was held that in the instant case, MRS involved were performed entirely in India. Moreover, such services were also delivered in India. In the Circumstances, the MRSs involved do not prima facie qualify for benefit of services exported. Accordingly, it was held that the demand relatable to MRS and the applicable interest sustainable.
 
Appellant ordered to pay pre-deposit of the part amount. Pre-deposit for balance amount waived and stay granted.
 
Judgment:- Pre-deposit of part amount ordered and stay granted.
 
Comment:- There are three criteria for export of services. The list of services are notified for such services. One criteria is that if the service receiver is situated outside India and the benefit of service also occurs outside India then despite of the fact that services were rendered in the India, it will be called as export of service. The same has been upheld in this decision. But second criteria is that the property is situated in India and service is provided in relation to that property then it will not be export of services. Management, repair and maintenance service also falls under that category. Though the payment is received in foreign service, the service will not be termed as export of services.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com