Cce, Coimbatore vs M/S. Cbay Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. 71
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The place where the foreign exchange is realised is immaterial to the question of jurisdiction over a refund claim for export of service; receipt of foreign exchange in one city does not by itself establish that the refund jurisdiction lies in that city. Where a service is provided from one unit and the taxable event occurs at that unit, the authority having jurisdiction over that unit is the authority competent to entertain the refund application, and the existence of another unit receiving the consideration does not make the two units distinct for this purpose.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 71 to 74/2013 dated 20.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore)
CCE, Coimbatore Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Cbay Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance
Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR), for the Appellant Shri Joseph Prabhakar, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing / Decision: 18.2.2015
Final Order No. 40181 / 2015
The miscellaneous application bringing out that no prejudice is caused to Revenue by the change of name as has been approved by the Registrar of Companies by Fresh Certificate of Incorporation issued on 24.8.2012 is allowed for no objection by Revenue.
2. The precise question in this appeal is whether the service provided in Coimbatore shall provide the jurisdiction to the respondent for claim of refund thereat.
3. There appears confusion by the adjudicating authority on the ground that because the foreign exchange was received in Mumbai, the respondent should have sought refund of the service exported, in Mumbai jurisdiction.
3. Above conception of the adjudicating authority is erroneous in law because wherever foreign exchange is realized makes no difference to law since that has come to India and that establishes the export of service from India. Therefore, learned appellate authority is correct in para 7 of his order to hold that there is no question of treating the Mumbai unit of the respondent as well as Coimbatore unit to be distinct. Respondent provided service in Coimbatore and taxable event occurred thereat. The authority of Coimbatore has jurisdiction over the issue of refund for which he should rightly entertain the refund application.
4. In view of above discussion, both stay application and appeal of Revenue are dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. Panda) Judicial Member
Rex
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free