2015TIOL2671CESTATMUM

INTHECUSTOMS,EXCISEANDSERVICETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL
WESTZONALBENCHATMUMBAI
COURTNO.II
APPEALNO.ST/100/11MUM
ArisingoutofOrderinOriginalNo.1920/STII/KKS/2010dtd.24/1/2010
PassedbytheCommissionerServiceTax,MumbaiII
Dateofhearing:30.10.2015
Dateofdecision:30.10.2015
COMMISSIONEROFSERVICETAX,MUMBAIII
Vs
M/sBLUESTARLTD
AppellantRepby:Shri.A.K.Goswami,AdditionalDy.Commissioner(A.R.)
RespondentRepby:Shri.SiladityaSarkar,C.A.
CORAM:PSPruthi,Member(T)
RameshNair,Member(J)
STRespondentreceivingcommissioninconvertibleforeignexchangefromtheforeignbased
principalsforpromotionofsalesofproduction,initiatingcontractsaswellastermsofdelivery
paymentsandwarrantiesetc.Commissioner(A)droppingdemandagainstrespondentforthe
periodAugust,2006toMarch,2008andApril,2008toMarch,2009onthegroundthatservice
provided by them constitute Export of Services and two conditions of export specified in Rule
3(2)oftheExportofServicesRules,2005aremetRevenueappealbeforeCESTAT.
Held:BenchisinfullagreementwithorderoftheCommissioner(A)Sameissuestandsdecided
by the Tribunal in favour in respondent's own case 2008TIOL716CESTATBANG as well as
Tribunal order dated 24/9/2014 2014TIOL2257CESTATMUM Order of Commissioner(A) is
upheldandRevenueappealisdismissed:CESTAT[para5,6]
Appealdismissed
Caselawscited:
BlueStarLtd.2008TIOL716CESTATBANGpara6followed
BlueStarLtd.2014TIOL2257CESTATMUMpara6followed
ORDERNOA/3701/15/STB
Per:P.S.Pruthi
This appeal arises from OrderinOriginal dated 24/11/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Service
Tax, MumbaiII, dropping the demand against respondent for the period August, 2006 to March, 2008
andApril,2008toMarch,2009.

2.Duringtheauditoftheappellant'srecord,itwasnoticethattheyarereceivingcommissionfromthe
foreign based principals for promotion of sales of production, initiating contracts as well as terms of
deliverypaymentsandwarrantiesetc.Inotherwords,theyareprovidingcomprehensiveSalessupport
servicefallingundercategoryofBusinessAuxiliaryServiceunderSection65(105)(zzb)oftheFinance
Act,1994.
3.ClaimoftheLd.CounselisthattheserviceprovidedbythemconstituteExportofServicesandtwo
conditions of export specified in Rule 3(2) of the Export of Services Rule, 2005 are met. These two
conditionsarethat(i)servicesshouldbeusedoutsideIndiaand(ii)paymentofsuchservicesshouldbe
receivedbytheServiceProviderinconvertibleforeignexchange.
4.Ld.A.R.appearingonbehalfoftheRevenuereiteratestheGroundsofAppeal.
5. We are in full agreement with order of the Commissioner wherein after analyzing the services
provided,hehascametotheconclusionthatbothconditionsofExportofServicesaresatisfied.Hehas
alsoreliedonclarificationissuedbytheMinistryvideCircularNo.111/5/2009STdated24/2/2009.The
said circular clarifies at Sr. No. (iii) that taxable services shall be treated as Export of Services if
Indian agents who undertake marketing in India of goods of a foreign seller. In this case, the agent
undertakes all activities within India and received commission for his services from foreign seller in
convertibleforeignexchange.
6. The same issue stands decided by the Tribunal in their own case reported in [2008 (11) S.T.R. 23
(Tri.Bang.)]=2008TIOL716CESTATBANGaswellasTribunalorderNo.A/1611/14/CSTB/CIdated
24/9/2014=2014TIOL2257CESTATMUM.
7.Inviewoftheabove,impugnedorderisupheld,Revenue'sappealisdismissed.
(Dictatedincourt)
(DISCLAIMER:Thoughalleffortshavebeenmadetoreproducetheordercorrectlybuttheaccessandcirculation
issubjecttotheconditionthatTaxindiaonlinearenotresponsible/liableforanylossordamagecausedtoanyone
duetoanymistake/error/omissions.)