Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(E) Amount Of Refund Claimed: Rs (in figures and in words) 9.2 From the above Rules and the Notification, it is clear that the output service is exported in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Export of Services Rules, 2005, and the input credit used in these exported services have to be clearly accounted for. Therefore, its necessary to examine whether the services exported were in accordance with the Export of Services Rules, 2005.

9.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order observes "The main contention of the appellant is that service is ultimately rendered to the customer outside India for which payment is received by them in convertible foreign exchange. I find that it is true that services have been provided to a foreign based client but at the same time it is also true that majority of the said services were not provided from Indian territory by the appellant but by their subsidiaries elsewhere. Further to avail the benefit of exemption of export of services under 'Export of Services Rules' 2005 it has been stipulated in clear terms that the following 2 conditions that is a b have to be satisfied. It is an ST/875,876,877/2012 undisputed fact that in this case the payment of said services have been received by the appellant but reimbursed to the respective subsidiary units as per their subcontracting agreements. The outsource service earns foreign exchange off around 92-95% of the contract amount for the respective country of the subsidiary company as per the subcontracting agreements and not to India. Mere documentation would not facilitate the appellant to avail the export incentive as the facts disentitled them from the export benefits towards service rendered by service providers located in countries other than India. It is therefore apparent from the records the mandatory requirement of output service being performed by the service provider from India to fetch convertible foreign exchange to India is not satisfied. The appellants have neither disputed the findings of the respondent of having received remittances for the output services that were rendered by establishments situated outside India, remittance instructions for depositing in Bank of America, Chicago and the Deutsche Bank Amsterdam, Mumbai etc; and also of such instances wherein as per the softex copies the service is claimed to be rendered by Infosys Pune whereas the services are not rendered/exported from India nor substantiated their claim with any evidence to show that the services are rendered from India as required under Rule 3(2) of ESR 2005."