Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1342 - AT - Service TaxRefund of Service tax - export service or not - intermediary as defined under Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012, or not - HELD THAT:- According to the said service agreement, the appellants had undertaken research activity related to the market scenario of steel sector in India and supplied the same to their parent company. They were not involved in any manner regarding execution of sale, arranging of customer in India or providing any guarantee for and on behalf of the company. ‘Intermediary Service’ has been defined under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 - As per Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012, to attract the said definition there should be two or more persons besides the service provider. In the present case, the appellants are providing services to their parent company at Japan and they did not involve in any manner in the activity of negotiation for sale and purchase of goods in India or collection of sale proceeds from customers on behalf of the parent company, hence cannot be called as an ‘intermediary’ and, accordingly, do not fall under Rule 9(c) of the Place of Provisions of Service Rules, 2012 - denying the cash refund of the accumulated Cenvat credit for the intervening period is bad in law. The order of Learned Member (Judicial) as well as of Learned Member (technical) are on same lines - refund is to be allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|