Commissioner Of Central Excise& ... vs M/S. Bobst India Private Limited

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 1/P-III/ST/COMMR/2011-12 dated 1.4.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise& Service Tax, Pune-III Appellant Vs. M/S. Bobst India Private Limited Respondent

Appearance:

Shri: K.S. Mishra, Additional Commissioner (AR) for Appellant Shri. Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 19/08/2015 Date of Decision : 19/08/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original No. 1/P-III/ST/COMMR/2011-12 dated 1.4.2011.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the service tax liability on the respondent for the commission received by them from their parent company. It is the case of the revenue that the said commission received by respondent is taxable under Business Auxiliary Services. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceeding initiated by the show cause notice.

4. After hearing both sides at length, we find that the issue involved in this case is now squarely settled by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi-2014 (36) S.T.R. 766. In the said judgment, the majority view has held that any commission received for rendering services in India to the principals situated abroad, will be export of services more so if the agent is rendering the services of ascertaining potential customers under the territory, informing about market conditions and competitor activities, identifying customers, contacting customers and selling over etc. All these activities are undertaken by the respondent in the case in hand. Since the issue is now squarely settled by the decision of the Tribunal, we hold that the impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity.

5. Appeal filed by the Revenue, is rejected.

(Pronounced in Court)

(C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

akp 1 3 APPEAL No.ST/438/11-Mum