Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
National Engineering Industries ... vs Cce, Jaipur on 19 May, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing:19.05.2011
Date of decision:19.05.2011
Service Tax Appeal No.599 of 2007
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.137/GRM/S.T./JPR-I/2007 dated 24.07.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur].
National Engineering Industries Limited Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur Respondent
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri M.Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Appearance: Rep. by Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the appellants.
Rep. by Shri Sonal Bajaj, SDR for the respondent.
CORAM: Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Order No/Dated:19.05.2011 Per M.V. Ravindran:
This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.137/GRM/S.T./JPR-I/2007 dated 24.07.2007.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The relevant facts arise for consideration are that the appellants herein filed a refund claim of Rs.5,07,603/- in terms of Rule 3 of Export of Services Rules, 2005. The occasion for claiming the refund is that the appellant being agent of General Motor Corporation, USA had provided services of sourcing them the contract from Indian Railways and got a commission from M/s. General Motor Corporation, USA. The Indian Railways opted to pay General Motor Corporation amount after reducing the commission to be paid to the appellant. The appellant discharged the service tax on the commission received from Indian Railways and filed a refund claim indicating that these are export of services. Both the lower authorities have held against the appellant on the ground that the amount received by the appellant being in Indian rupees, the conditions of Rule 3(2)(b) of Export of Services Rules, 2005 were not fulfilled inasmuch as they are not receiving the amount in convertible currency.
4. Ld. Counsel submits that in an identical issue for the earlier period in the assessees own case in Final Order No.770/07 dated 13.12.2007 and Final Order No.ST/105 of 2009 dated 5.3.2009, the Bench has given the relief to the assessee holding that the appellant has exported the services despite receiving the amount in Indian rupees. We find it so. Since the Tribunal has held that in the assessees own case in the given circumstances that the services rendered by them has to be considered as export of services, the lower authorities findings that they are rendering the services are not export of services seems to be incorrect.
5. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief in accordance with law.
( M.V. Ravindran ) Member (Judicial) ( M. Veeraiyan ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1