M\/s. Sundaram Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1151 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 25-9-2018
Appeal No. ST\/225\/2012 – Final Order No. 42475\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri Akhil Suresh, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nBrief facts are that the appellants were engaged in providing clearing & forwarding services and they provided services to M\/s. Project Management Inc. USA for the goods manufactured and exported by them for the period June 2008. The department was of the view that they were lia<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n dia and Received in India) Rules 2006, there cannot be any liability even after insertion of Section 66A since clearing and forwarding services are wholly performed outside India. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bnazrum Agro Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai – 2018-TIOL-1532-CESTAT-MAD. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Sundaram Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, MaduraiService Tax2018 (11) TMI 1151 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 25-9-2018Appeal No. ST\/225\/2012 – Final Order No. 42475\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri Akhil Suresh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniam, … Continue reading “M\/s. Sundaram Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15146","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. AR Shri R. Subramaniam supported the findings in the impugned order.
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. From the facts narrated above, it is seen that the appellants have provided clearing and forwarding services to the service recipient who is situated outside India. The Tribunal in the case of Bnazrum Agro Export Pvt. Ltd. (supra), had occasion to analyse the very same issue and it was held that the <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n