TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame called. The agreement which is referred to by the lower authorities whereby the appellant was obliged to provide Management and Technical Services to the company, is clearly between the appellant and the company alone with no third person anywhere figuring in it. It is the basic document which binds both the appellant as well as the company which also defines scope of services and hence, the necessary implication is that the Management and Technical Services which are provided by the appellant are only to the company which is located outside India. There is no allegation that the appellant was involved in any way, either in purchase or sale of goods or even in the collection of sale proceeds from the customers of the company. By this al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers-in-Appeal and hence, they are taken up together for common disposal. The common issue in all the appeals is the rejection of refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR for short). 2. Brief facts which are relevant are that the appellant is holding the service tax registration certificate for rendering Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) and are exporting management consultancy services. They have filed various refund claims as mentioned in the table supra seeking refund of unutilised CENVAT credit paid on input services used for providing the output services exported during the impugned period under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dt. 18/06/2012. As the entire taxable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany in Singapore and the ultimate beneficiary of services is the Singapore company which proves export of services and further the support services rendered as per the agreement are BAS and in such cases, the location of the service receiver is the criterion to consider export of service. After considering the various submissions of the appellant, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide his detailed order rejected all the appeals and hence the present appeals. Aggrieved by the above Orders-in-Appeal, the appellant filed appeals before this Bench and this Bench vide Final Order Nos. 22332-22337/2017 dated 28/09/2017 dismissed the appeals. The appellant filed Central Excise Appeals before the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e through the relevant provisions and also various orders/decisions relied on during the course of argument. Rule 2(f) of POP prior to 01/10/2014 read as under: intermediary means a broker, an agent or any other person, by whatever name called, who arranges or facilitates a provision of a service (hereinafter called the main service) between two or more persons, but does not include a person who provides the main service on his account Post amendment (w.e.f 01/10/2014), the definition of intermediary is as under: intermediary means a broker, an agent or any other person, by whatever name called, who arranges or facilitates a provision of a service (hereinafter called the main service) or a supply of goods, between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services under Rule 6A ibid. 6. The above discussion is sufficient to hold that the authorities below have grossly misconstrued the relevant provisions to deny the valid refund claims of the appellant and hence, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) cannot sustain and hence, the same is set aside. 7. I find that the learned Chandigarh Bench of CESTAT in its Final Order Nos. 60959 60960/2021 dated 07/10/2021 in the case of Macquarie Global Services Pvt. Ltd. has analysed the scope of intermediary service and held as under: 4.6 In the decision of CESTAT in Orange Business Solutions Pvt Ltd, supra and also the Circular issued by the Board, the basic characteristics, of the intermediary has been clearly spelt out. Also in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
