Price Water House Coopers Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chandigarh)
The appeal was filed by Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. against an order of the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Faridabad, confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 4,51,56,323, along with interest and penalties. The dispute arose from services provided by the appellant to Price Water House Coopers entities in the USA, UK and Australia during the period 31 August 2006 to 31 March 2011 under agreements for management consultancy services.
Following departmental audit and correspondence, a show cause notice dated 20 April 2012 alleged that the appellant had rendered services in the nature of Market Research Agency Services and Chartered Accountant Services while claiming exemption under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. It was also alleged that the appellant had failed to discharge service tax on services provided to an Indian company through its foreign subsidiaries. The Commissioner confirmed the demand, denied export of service benefits and imposed interest and penalties, leading to the present appeal.
The appellant contended that it was engaged in providing consultancy and advisory services relating to accounting, finance management, mergers and acquisitions, due diligence, financial viability assessments and diagnostic reviews, all of which were classifiable as Management or Business Consultant Services. It argued that these services did not fall within the scope of Chartered Accountant Services because it was an incorporated company and not a practising chartered accountant or chartered accountant firm under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The appellant also submitted that market analysis formed only a part of the consultancy assignments and was not an independent market research service. It further argued that its services qualified as exports under the Export of Service Rules, 2005 because the recipient was located outside India, consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange and the reports prepared by the appellant were delivered to overseas entities for use in rendering services to their clients. The appellant also challenged the computation of demand, denial of cum-tax benefit, invocation of the extended period of limitation and the delay of over seven years in adjudicating the show cause notice.
The Revenue supported the impugned order, contending that the services were classifiable as Chartered Accountant Services and Market Research Agency Services and that the appellant was not entitled to export benefits because the services had been performed entirely within India.
The Tribunal examined the statutory definitions of Management or Business Consultant, Market Research Agency and Practising Chartered Accountant under the Finance Act, 1994, as well as the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. It found that the appellant, being a private limited company, was neither authorised nor engaged in practising chartered accountancy and therefore its services could not be classified as Chartered Accountant Services. It further observed that the appellant’s activities, including consultancy, mergers and acquisitions assistance, due diligence, health checks and financial viability evaluations, were appropriately classifiable as Management or Business Consultant Services, while market research formed only a limited component of the overall consultancy assignments and did not justify classification as Market Research Agency Services. The Tribunal also noted that the impugned order failed to quantify separately the demand attributable to each taxable category, rendering the classification unsustainable.
On the issue of export of services, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had entered into contracts with PwC Overseas Network Firms and not with their clients. The contractual relationship existed exclusively between the appellant and the overseas network firms, and the reports prepared by the appellant were delivered to those foreign entities, which used them in providing services to their own clients. Relying on its earlier decision in the appellant’s own case and on CST v. B.A. Research India Ltd., the Tribunal held that although part of the work was performed in India, the services were completed only upon delivery of the reports outside India, where the benefit of the services accrued. Accordingly, the services satisfied the requirements of Export of Service Rules, 2005 and qualified as exports not liable to service tax.
The Tribunal further held that the adjudication order had been passed nearly seven years after issuance of the show cause notice, contrary to the timelines prescribed under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994. Following the decisions in Sunder System Pvt. Ltd. and Kamaladitya Construction Pvt. Ltd., it held that the show cause notice was liable to be quashed on account of the delay.
The Tribunal also held that the dispute involved interpretation of service classification and eligibility for export benefits. Since there was no evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, invocation of the extended period of limitation was held to be unsustainable. As the service tax demand itself failed, the Tribunal also held that the associated interest and penalties could not survive.
Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that although the services were performed in India, their ultimate benefit accrued outside India, making them exports under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHANDIGARH ORDER
The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Faridabad, whereby the learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax based on the allegations levelled in the show cause notice dated 20.04.2012 to the extent of Rs.4,51,56,323/- along with levy of interest and penalty.
2.1 Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant is a registered company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is registered with the Service Tax Department. The appellant is engaged in provision of ‘Management Consultancy Services‟ and accordingly has entered into an agreement with M/s Price Water House Coopers at USA, UK and Australia (hereinafter referred to as ‘PwC Overseas’) for provision of Management Consultancy Services during the period of 31.08.2006 to 31.03.2011.
2.2 During September 2006, the Audit Officials from the Service Tax Department conducted an audit of the service tax records of the appellant. Subsequently, the Department issued various letters to the appellant to ask for details for the period 23.05.2006 to 31.03.2011, which was duly furnished by the appellant. The appellant also informed the Department vide letter dated 14.11.2006 that they have taken registration under the head Management Consultancy Services and therefore, are eligible to exemption under Rule 3(3) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. On the basis of audit of records conducted by the Department, a show cause notice dated 20.04.2012 was issued to the appellant alleging that:
– firstly, the appellant had rendered services in the nature of Market Research and Financial Auditing and has not paid the service tax on such services by claiming exemption under Export of Service Rules 2005 for the period in dispute.
– secondly, the appellant has failed to discharge service tax liability on services provided to an Indian Company through the appellant’s foreign subsidiaries at USA, UK and Australia.
2.3 The appellant filed detailed reply to the show cause notice vide letter dated 10.06.2012. Thereafter, a personal hearing was conducted on 16.07.2019 whereby the learned Commissioner passed the impugned order by confirming the demand of service tax along with interest and penalty and denied the benefit of export of service. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record.
4.1 The learned Consultant for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law; and binding judicial precedents on the identical issues.
4.2 The learned Consultant further submits that the appellant is engaged in providing Consultancy and Advisory Services in the areas of accounting, finance management, mergers and acquisition etc and is duly registered under the category of „Management or Business Consultants Services‟ and has been discharging service tax liability on the said services. He further submits that the said service is covered under Rule 3(3) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 and hence qualifies as export of service. Therefore, the service tax is not payable on the consideration received for rendering of such services to foreign recipients. He further submits that the nature of services provided by the appellant does not fall under the taxable category of CA Services or Market Research Services. He also submits that the appellant renders a combination of services with the prime aim of financial projections which involved advice, consultancy and technical assistance in arriving at project costs, financial projections, sensitivities etc. The market analysis is a part of the entire process and not an independent service provided by the appellant to their client. Therefore, the services rendered by the appellant are more appropriately classifiable under Management Consultant Services.
4.3 The learned Consultant further submits that the appellant does not render CA Service and the services rendered by the appellant are not similar to services rendered by the Chartered Accountant Firm. In this regard, he submits that the services which are rendered by a Chartered Accountant Firm are as under:
1) Conducting Statutory Audit of books of accounts under Section 224 of Companies Act, 1956
2) Conducting Tax Audits under Section 44AB of Income Tax Act, 1961
3) Conducting Internal Audit of books of accounts under Companies Act, 1956
4) Statutory Certification under Income Tax Act, 1961
5) Maintenance of books of accounts (book-keeping) as per Section 209 of Companies Act, 1956
He also submits that the services rendered by the CA Firm are governed by statutory provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and Income Tax Act, 1961. On the contrary, the services rendered by the appellant are by no stretch of imagination covered under any of the services rendered by a CA Firm. He further submits that the services which are rendered by appellant are as under:
a) Providing consultancy or advice,
b) Assistance in mergers & acquisition of companies,
c) Conducting due diligence under specific situations/transactions,
d) Conducting health check or diagnostic reviews,
e) Evaluation financial viability of a transaction, amongst others
The aforesaid services rendered do not fall under the statutory definition of Chartered Accountant’s services as given in Section 65(105)(s) of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submits that the ambit of the taxable service of Chartered Accountant covers only services provided by member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India holding a certificate of practice or any concern engaged in rendering services in the field of chartered accountancy. He also submits that the appellant, which is a Private Limited Company/Incorporated Company, is not engaged in the practice of Chartered Accountancy and does not function statutorily as required for the Practicing Chartered Accountants. Hence, the services rendered by appellant cannot be classified under “Chartered Accountant Service” by any stretch of imagination.
4.4 The learned Consultant further submits that the learned Commissioner has wrongly held that some of the services provided by the appellant are ‘Market Research Agency’s Services’. He also submits that the appellant is not engaged in providing or conducting market research. The core purpose of the engagement of the appellant is not to render market research; however, the appellant may internally undertake various researches to deliver appropriate and effective result to their clients.
4.5 The learned Consultant further submits that the services rendered by the appellant are appropriately classifiable under “Management or Business Consultants Services” which have wrongly been classified under „Chartered Accountancy Services‟ and ‘Market Research Agency’s Services‟. Further, he refers to definitions of ‘management consultant’ as it stood during the impugned period from 31.08.2006 to 31.05.2007 and from 01.06.2007 onwards till date and submits that the service rendered by the appellant squarely falls under consultancy or technical assistance in relation to financial management under „Management Consultants Services‟. He further submits that the service provided by the appellant pertains to assistance in organizing and systematizing an organization or effectiveness of its management and therefore, it is clearly covered under the inclusive portion of definition of management consultant. He further submits that the service cannot be classified under two categories of taxable services. In this regard, he refers to Section 65A of the Finance Act and submits that submits that the service can be categorized only under one head which is more specific and which justifies the nature of transaction more closely and keeping that criteria in mind, the services rendered by the appellant are closely taxable under the category of „Management Consultants Services‟ because the entire range of services cannot be classified either under CA Services or Market Research Services.
4.6 As regards the services rendered by the appellant which qualify as export of services within the meaning of Export of Service Rules, the learned Consultant submits that as per Export of Service Rules, the following conditions are provided for a service in order to constitute as export:
From 31-08-2006 to 28-02-2007
Taxable services which were provided and used by the recipient in or in relation to commerce or industry, such services would be treated as export of services only if
a) The recipient of such services was located outside India,
b) In case recipient of service has an office/establishment in India, the order for provision of such services should be placed from an office/ establishment outside India,
c) The service was delivered outside India and used outside India, and
d) Payment for such service provided outside India was received by the service provider in convertible foreign exchange.
From 1-03-2007 to 26-2-2010
The Export Rules were again amended by Notification No.2/2007-ST dated 01/03/07 with effect from 01/03/07, as a result of which Rule 3 was amended. The revised condition in clause requires that the services should be provided from India and used outside India meaning thereby that the condition that the service should be provided outside India was done away with, and rest all the conditions and restrictions including the condition of inward remittances of convertible foreign exchange continued to remain as same.
He further submits that in the present case, the beneficiary and the user of the services is clearly PwC Overseas as the said services would be used by PwC Overseas in rendering its services to its clients. He further submits that the Department has not appreciated the factual position that although the appellant provides services at the locations of their clients of PwC Overseas, the end result i.e. the reports are sent to PwC Overseas with the purpose of usage of such reports by PwC Overseas in rendering its services to their clients. Therefore, the delivery of these services can be established by the means of written communication in the form of reports which have been periodically sent by the appellant to PwC Overseas located outside India. He further submits that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in catena of judgments. In this regard, he relies on the following judgments:
- CST Vs B.A. Research India Ltd. – 2010 VIL 01
- Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. Vs CCE, Vishakhapatnam – 2009, 23 STT 475 (Bang CESTAT)
- National Engg. Industries Ltd. Vs CCE, Jaipur – 2008 (11) STR 156 (Tri. Delhi)
- Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax vide order number ST/A/53737/2014-CU(DB) – CESTAT New Delhi
- Microsoft Corporation (India) Vs CCE, Delhi in Appeal Nos. ST/57239-57240/2013 – CESTAT Chandigarh
- Vodafone Essar Cellular Vs CCE, Pune – 2013-TIOL-566-CESTAT-MUM
- Gap International Sourcing (India) Pvt Ltd – 2014-TIOL-465-CESTAT-DEL
- M/s Paul Merchants Itd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh – 2013 (29) STR 257 (Tri. Delhi)
4.7 The learned Consultant further submits that the demand has been erroneously computed as the appellant has not been given the benefit of cum-tax demand. He further submits that the Department has confirmed the service tax demand of Rs.1,27,90,193/- under the category of CA Services and Market Research Services, but the Department has not segregated the amount of demand pertaining to CA Services and Market Research Services separately.
4.8 As regards, payment of interest, the learned Consultant submits that when the service tax itself is not leviable, therefore, the question of interest does not arise.
4.9 The learned Consultant further submits that the adjudication proceedings in the present case had become barred by limitation in view of Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 which inter alia provides that the Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of duty within six months in case notice has been issued under Section 73(1) and within one year in case of fraud, collusion etc. Whereas, in the present case, the show cause notice was issued on 20.04.2012 and reply to the show cause notice was filed by the appellant on 10.07.2012 and personal hearing was attended by the representative of the appellant on 16.07.2019 and the impugned order was passed by the learned Commissioner on 29.11.2019 i.e. after seven years of issuance of show cause notice which is beyond the statutory limit. In this regard, the learned Consultant relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunder System Pvt Ltd vs UOI – 2020 (1) TMI 199 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed the show cause notice. He also relies on the decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s Kamaladitya Construction P Ltd – 2023 (10) TMI 449 wherein the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court quashed the show cause notice on the ground of delay in passing the impugned order.
4.10 The learned Consultant further submits that the impugned order has been passed by invoking the longer period under proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. He also submits that extended period cannot be invoked in the present case as there is no evidence on record to show that there is any fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the law or the rules made thereunder with the intent to evade payment of serviced tax. He further submits that the dispute involves interpretation of classification of service and eligibility for export of service. It is a settled law that when the matter involves interpretation of statutory provisions, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Padmini Products Vs Collector of C.Ex. – 1989 (8) TMI 80. He also submits that the adjudicating authority in para 17 of the impugned order has acknowledged the fact that the entire demand of service tax is based upon the details supplied by the appellant itself; hence, the question of suppression cannot be alleged. In support of his submissions, he relies on the following case laws on limitation:
- Lakshmi Engg. Works Vs CCE – 1989 (44) ELT 353 – by the Supreme Court as 1991 (55) ELT A33 (SC)
- Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs CCE – 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC)
- Anand Nishikawa Co Ltd Vs CCE – 2005 (188) ELT 149 (SC)
- Continental Foundation Joint Venture Holding Vs CCE – 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC)
4.11 As regards penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the learned Consultant submits that the said penalty cannot be imposed because the appellant entertained a bona fide belief that services provided by them are appropriately classified and covered under export of service during the impugned period.
5.1 On the other hand, the learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order and filed the written submissions. The learned AR submits that the services rendered by the appellant are financial auditing which are classifiable under the category of CA Services as per the provisions of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994.
5.2 The learned AR further submits that as per Rule 3(2) of Export of Service Rules, 2005, as amended vide Notification No. 6/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 sub-clause 2(a), such services provided from India and used outside India had been omitted vide Notification No. 6/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010. He further submits that both the services namely „Market Research Agency’s Services’ and „CA Services’ fell under Rule 3(2) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 and in order to be eligible for exemption, the appellant had to perform the service fully or partly outside India. Whereas, in the present case, the appellant had fully performed the service in India and therefore, they were not eligible for exemption under Export of Service Rules, 2005 and were liable to pay service tax.
5.3 Further, the learned AR has cited a specific case made in the show cause notice with reference to invoice dated 31.01.2006 where the ‘Management Consultancy Services’ have been provided to IBM India.
6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record. Before we proceed further, it is appropriate to reproduce the relevant extracts of the legal provisions concerning the „Chartered Accountant Services’ as well as „Market Research Agency’s Services’ and „Management or Business Consultant Services’ as provided in the Finance Act, 1994, which are reproduced herein below as under:
(65) “management or business consultant” means any person who is engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the management of any organization or business in any manner and includes any person who renders any advice, consultancy or technical assistance, in relation to financial management, human resources management, marketing management, production management, logistics management, procurement and management of information technology resources or other similar areas of management;
(69) “market research agency” means any person engaged in conducting market research in any manner, in relation to any product, service or utility, including all types of customized and syndicated research services;
(83) “practicing chartered accountant” means a person who is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and is holding a certificate of practice granted under the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (38 of 1949) and includes any concern engaged in rendering services in the field of chartered accountancy.
7. Further, we find that as per Section 2(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, a member of the institute shall be deemed “to be in practice”, when individually or in partnership with chartered accountants in practice, if he, in consideration of remuneration received or to be received –
i. engages himself in the practice of accountancy; or
ii. offers to perform or performs services involving the auditing or verification of financial transactions, books, accounts, or records or the preparation, verification or certification of financial accounting and related statements or holds himself out to the public as an accountant; or
iii. renders professional services or assistance in or about matters of principle or detail relating to accounting procedure or the recording, presentation or certification of financial facts or data; or
iv. renders such other services as, in the opinion of the Council, are or may be rendered by a chartered accountant in practice; and the words “to be in practice” with their grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.
8. Further, we find that in para 11 of the impugned order, the learned Adjudicating Authority has relied upon Section 2(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 to conclude that the services of auditing of financial transactions, books of accounts or records etc is covered under the ambit of a practicing chartered accountant.
9. Further, we find that the appellant, which is a Private Limited Company i.e. an Incorporated Company, is not engaged in the practice of Chartered Accountancy and does not function as statutorily required for Practicing Chartered Accountants and the appellant is not permitted to practice as a firm of chartered accountants by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Therefore, the services rendered by the appellant cannot be classified under „CA Services’ by any stretch of imagination.
10. As regards „Market Research Agency’s Services’, we find that in order to classify any service under the category of market research agency service, the person providing such service should necessarily be engaged in conducting market research whereas marketing is only a small segment of entire breadth of services rendered by the appellant. The nature of services rendered by the appellant includes providing consultancy or advice, assistance in mergers & acquisition of companies, conducting due diligence under specific situations/transactions, conducting health check or diagnostic reviews, evaluation financial viability of a transaction amongst others. Rather, the nature of services rendered by the appellant, it can be rightly classified under the category of Management or Business Consultants Services. The word management signifies ways and means for managing the organization, by any means i.e. by directions or by regulations or by administration. The word „direction’ indicates framing of policy and the word „regulation or administration’ indicates the standard operating procedure to be followed for achievement of the policy.
11. Further, we find that in the impugned order, the demand of Rs.1,27,90,193/- has been confirmed considering that the services are to be classified under the practicing Chartered Accountant Services and the Market Research Agency’s Services; but it has not been quantified in the impugned order as to how much is the demand under each category; therefore, the impugned order is bad classifying the services rendered by the appellant under the category of Chartered Accountant Services and the Market Research Agency’s Services.
12. As regards export of services, we find that the appellant has entered into contract/agreement with PwC Overseas Network Firms and not with the clients of PwC Overseas Network Firms under which the appellant provides services, which can either be provided from the premises of the appellant or any other place as agreed with PwC Overseas Network Firms. The privity of contract arises between the appellant and PwC Overseas Network Firms and not between the appellant and the clients of PwC Overseas Network Firms, because the PwC Overseas Network Firms have separate agreement with its clients.
13. Further, we are of the opinion that the issue whether the services provided by the appellant to the Foreign Network Firms and other Foreign Companies for a consideration collected in convertible foreign exchange would be qualified for export services under Export of Services Rules, 2005 or otherwise is no more res integra and has been settled by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the appellant‟s own case vide Order No. A/31339-31340/2018 dated 25.10.2018 reported as CCE & ST, Hyderabad-II Vs Price Water House (vice versa) – 2018 (11) TMI 32. The extract of relevant part of the said order is reproduced below:
“It is undisputed that the appellant herein rendered services to their overseas network entities as well as to their clients located outside India and the consideration for such services was collected inconvertible foreign currency. The findings of the adjudicating authority is that the services rendered by the appellant are in the form of auditing and accounting of various entities situated in India but had only forwarded the certificate to the foreign entities which is not service rendered outside India; it is also finding that the services are rendered to foreign clients, but performed wholly within India. We find the period during which the appellant had rendered the services is April 2005 to September 2008 and there being undisputed fact that the services are rendered to foreign clients but performed in India in the form of various inspections and auditing of their clients and for the network firms, we find that the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of B.A. Research India Limited (supra) would directly apply in the case in hand….”
Further, in the case of CST Vs B.A. Research India Ltd (supra), the Tribunal has elaborately explained such situations and acknowledged that in case the reports are delivered outside India, the transaction qualifies as an export. The extract of relevant part of the said order is reproduced below:
“The performance is not complete until the testing and analysis report is delivered to the client. In the present, when such reports were delivered to the clients outside India, it amounts to the taxable service partly performed outside India. The performance of the taxable service has no validity/sanctity unless its report is submitted to the service recipient/client. The clients do not have any value for merely performance if no report is delivered to them. Consideration of service is received by the appellants only when they deliver the study report and the certificate of technical testing and analysts of the clinical trial conducted by them. Thus, delivery of the report is an essential part of their service and the service is not complete till they deliver the report. The report is delivered outside India and the same is used outside India. These facts also fortify the views taken herein-above that the service provided by appellant was export of service and I am inclined to hold such taxable service as export of service and therefore not taxable.”
Similarly, it has been consistently held by the Tribunals/Courts in the cases relied upon by the learned Consultant for the appellant as cited supra, that if the service is provided by a person in India is consumed and used by a person abroad, it has to be treated as export of service.
14. Further, we find that in this case the show cause notice was issued on 20.04.2012 and the reply was filed by the appellant on 10.07.2012, but the impugned order was passed on 29.11.2019 i.e. after seven years of issuance of show cause notice. It has been consistently held by the Tribunals/Courts that the Adjudicating Authority is required to pass the order within time as prescribed under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994; but in the present case, the same was not passed within time. Therefore, in view of the ratios of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunder System Pvt Ltd (supra) and the decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s Kamaladitya Construction P Ltd (supra), the show cause notice needs to be quashed.
15. As regards limitation, we find that the dispute in this case involves interpretation of classification of service and eligibility for export of service and it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Padmini Products Vs Collector of C.Ex. (supra) that when the matter involves interpretation of statutory provisions, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Further, we hold that extended period cannot be invoked in the present case as there is no evidence on record to show that there is any fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of law or rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of tax.
16. As regards interest and penalty concerned, we hold that when the demand of service tax itself is not sustainable, therefore, the question of interest and penalty does not arise.
17. In the light of our discussion above, we are of the view that in both the issues discussed above, though the services are performed by the appellant in India, but the ultimate benefits accrued outside India and hence, the services are used outside India and therefore, fall under the definition of „Export of Service‟ as per Export of Service Rules, 2005.
18. In view of our above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, we set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in the court on 28.08.2024)
