9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dering administrative and sales related services to the group entities located outside India. During the relevant period, the appellant had entered into various agreements with overseas group entities for promotion of products and solicitation of orders for them from prospective customers located in India. The appellant in terms of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 had considered their services as export of service and accordingly, claimed refund of accumulated cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18.6.2012. The original authority had rejected the refund application on the ground that the services provided by the appellant are not to be considered as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service, contained in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the services have also no nexus with the output service provided by the appellant. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant should not be considered as an intermediary between the transactions effected by the overseas entities and the purchaser of goods inasmuch as the consideration for the appellant's services is based upon cost plus mark up and is delinked with the value of the main supply. Thus, he submitted that the embargo created in the Provision of Service Rules, 2012 should not be applicable and the appellant should be eligible for the benefit of refund as provided under notification dated 18.6.2012. Further, he has also re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that the appellant had facilitated supply of goods between its foreign counterpart and processing of goods and thus, it should be considered as an intermediary. On perusal of the contracts, I find that the service fee charged by the appellant to its overseas group entities for provision of service has no direct nexus with the supply of goods by the overseas group entities to its customers in India. Further, the appellant had provided the service to the overseas entities on principal to principal basis. Thus, the appellant cannot be termed as an intermediary between the overseas entity and the Indian customers. It is an admitted fact on record that the consideration received by the appellant for providing the services was based upon cost p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
