The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore has allowed Dell India Pvt. Ltd.’s appeal on merits, holding that marketing and support services provided to foreign entities qualify as export of services, while remanding the case only for limited verification of documentary evidence.
The Bench of P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) has observed that the relevant factor is the location of the service receiver. The place of performance of the service or the place where the customers of the service receiver are located is irrelevant. Dell’s marketing support services, rendered to its foreign affiliates and paid for in convertible foreign exchange, qualified as export of service. Cenvat credit eligibility cannot be questioned during rebate adjudication, as such grounds were not part of the show cause notices.
The appellant/assessee, Dell India had filed rebate claims under Notification No. 11/2005-ST dated April 19, 2005, read with Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, contending that it provided marketing and promotional support services to its foreign group companies — Dell Global BV (DGBV) and Dell Asia Pacific, Malaysia.
The company received consideration on a cost-plus markup basis in convertible foreign exchange and treated the services as export of service under Rule 3 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005.
However, the Commissioner (Appeals), LTU Bangalore, rejected the claims, holding that the services were not exports since the goods were sold and consumed in India, and the Cenvat credit availed was ineligible, making the refund claim untenable.
Dell argued that the services were rendered to entities located outside India and consideration was received in foreign exchange;
The department maintained that since the goods were delivered to Indian customers, the services could not qualify as export. The Department also urged that the case be remanded for verifying correlation between FIRCs and export invoices.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s argument that the services were consumed in India, noting that the location of the service recipient — not the place of consumption — determines whether the service is exported.
Although the Tribunal decided the case in Dell India’s favor on legal grounds, it remanded the matter for the limited purpose of verifying correlation between FIRCs and export invoices, as the Commissioner (Appeals) had not conducted this factual examination.
Case Details
Case Title: Dell India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals)
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 271 of 2011
Date: 16.10.2025
Counsel For Appellant: Syed M Peeran
Counsel For Respondent: Money Jain
