1. This Appeal under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order dated 30 October, 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal).
2. Revenue has urges the following questions of law, for our consideration:—
“(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration the case of Blue Star v. C.C.E. Bangalore reported in [2008 (11) S.T.R. 23 (Tri-Bang.)] as well as its own Order No. A/1611/14/CSTB/C-1 dated 24th September, 2014 since the same are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and also given that said Orders have been appealed against before this Court?
(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in interpreting the Circular No. 111/5/2009-ST dated 24th February, 2009, which, on its true and correct meaning and interpretation does not espouse the case of the Respondent herein?”
3. The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal from the order dated 8 December, 2010 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, dropping demand for the period April, 2008 to March, 2009.
4. The genesis of this proceeding is that during the course of audit of the Respondent's activity, it was noticed that the Respondent was receiving commission from foreign based principals for promotion of sale of its products/goods in India. The Revenue was of the view that the services provided by the Respondents, would fall under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ chargeable to tax, on account of the commission received. Thus, a show cause notice dated 14 October, 2009 was issued under Section 73 of the Act, demanding service tax of Rs. 3,45,75,127/- for the period 2008-09.
5. It was the Respondent's case which was accepted by the Commissioner of Service Tax, that services rendered by the Respondent to its foreign principals constituted export of service and covered by the Export of Service Rules 2005.
6. Being aggrieved, the Appellant-Revenue preferred an Appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 30 October, 2015, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Service Tax, holding that the services provided by the Respondent would be covered under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The impugned order also placed reliance upon the Circular No. 111 of 2009 dated 24 February, 2009 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The above circular has clarified that the services rendered by the Indian Agent for marketing of goods of a foreign sellers, would be covered by Export of Service Rules, 2005. Thus, the demand raised was unsustainable and the Appeal of the Revenue was, dismissed.
7. Mr. Bangur, learned Counsel for the Revenue in support of the appeal relies upon the show cause notice.
8. We find that the issue raised herein is no longer res-integra. An identical nature of services as rendered by the Respondent to its foreign clients, had come up for consideration before this Court in Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai v. ATE Enterprises (P) Ltd., 2018 (8) GST 123. This Court followed its earlier decision in SGS India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, 34 STR 554 and held that services of procuring orders and passing it to its overseas principal/parties and receiving payments for the same in foreign exchange, is an activity of export of services covered by the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Therefore, the issue stands concluded in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant by the decision of this Court in ATE. Enterprises (P) Ltd., (supra). Further, Circular No. 111 of 2009 dated 24 February, 2009 issued by the CBEC also supports the case of the Respondent. Nothing has been shown to us as to why above Circular cannot be read in the manner in which the Commissioner of Service Tax and the Tribunal has read it.
9. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Blue Star Ltd., rendered on 24 September, 2014 which was also a subject matter of appeal before this Court being Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai VII, Commissionerate v. Blue Star Ltd., (Central Excise Appeal No. 173 of 2017). This appeal on an identical issue, was dismissed on 11 September, 2018, as not giving rise to any substantial questions of law.
10. In the above view, two questions as proposed, do not give rise to any substantial questions of law. Thus, not entertained.
11. Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.