Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 384 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - intermediary services or not - export of services - Refund claim - scope of the Service Agreement - Business Support services - rendering Business Services including sales support, marketing, advertising, billing, etc. - services on ‘principal to principal’ basis, or as an ‘intermediary’? - rejection of refund claim on export of service, as it appeared to Revenue that the appellant is providing the services to their principal located outside India as an ‘intermediary’ - POPOS Rules - Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT). Period April, 2012 to June, 2012 - HELD THAT:- The same is for the Positive List Regime (prior to 30.06.2012) - demand do not sustain - decided in favor of appellant. Location of service provider/appellant - Rule 9 of POPS - case of Revenue is that the location of service provider/appellant is in India and further in terms of Rule 9 of POPS, the service provided, being intermediary services, the location of the service provider under Rule 9 of POPS, shall be the place of provision of services, provided to Verizon US - HELD THAT:- The said stand of Revenue is wholly mis-construed and erroneous. Firstly, no demand notice was issued on the appellant refusing or questioning the status of the export of service to Verizon US, as declared in their ST-3 Returns -. Further, admitted facts are that the appellants have provided output services and raised invoices on principal to principal basis. The appellant has not been acting as intermediary between another service provider and Verizon US. This fact is also supported from the fact that the appellant has raised their bills for the services provided on the basis of cost plus 11% mark-up. As the services have been provided by the appellant under contract with Verizon US, who are located outside India and have raised their invoices, for such services and have received the remittance in convertible foreign exchange, the appellant satisfies all the conditions, as specified under Rule 6 A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, inserted w.e.f 1.7.2012. It is evident that the services of the appellant to Verizon US do not merit classification under the category of ‘intermediary services’ - the appellants have rendered services to Verizon US as principal service provider and not as an intermediary. The appellants are entitled to refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with the notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|