9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case are that the appellant are registered under service tax for providing taxable services falling under the categories of commercial training and coaching, Manpower recruitment agency service and information technology software service and Business Auxilliary service. Appellant filed a refund claim on 26/07/2018 for Rs. 8,47,354/- consequent to passing of Order-in- Appeal No.676/2018 dt. 27/06/2018 by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Bangalore for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax availed on the input services used for providing output services said to have been exported during the period January 2013 to March 2013 in terms of provisions of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The claim was supported with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by the Commissioner in the order itself. Consequent to passing of the said Order-in-Appeal, the appellant filed refund claim on the partially rejected amount of Rs. 8,47,354/- as per the direction given by the Commissioner(Appeals). After following the due process, the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dt. 21/12/2018 has rejected the claim on the ground that the BAS provided by the appellant to its group companies outside India would be considered as 'Intermediary Services' and cannot be treated as export of services. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the appeal. hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4.1. Learned counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso, the appellant has a good case. 4.2. On merits, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants are providing ITSS and BAS as services to group companies located outside India and these services provided to group companies located outside India are treated as export of service. The place of provision for these services is the place of recipient i.e. group companies located outside India. He further submitted that the services are provided on principal to principal basis and there is no element of principal-agent relationship. It is not a tripartite arrangement granting rights of claim by each of the three parties - service provider, beneficiary of service and the intermediary/agency/broker. The agreement is only an arrangement betwee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intermediary whose revenue is contingent upon the success of marketing activity. He further submitted that mere rendering of marketing and sales support services on principal to principal basis such as customer identification, market analysis and coordination with the customers for meeting with CSG group etc. cannot be construed as arranging provision of intermediary services as contemplated in clause 2(f) of the POPS Rules read with Rule 9 of the said Rules. For this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of CCE&ST, Bangalore Vs. Analog Devices India pvt. Ltd. [2017(12) TMI 830 - CESTAT Bangalore] wherein it has been held that appellant are not rendering the intermediary service and they are rendering consulting engineer serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal filed against the said order, Commissioner(Appeals) remanded the matter and directed the original authority to reconsider the matter in the light of his earlier Order-in-Appeal No.728 to 730/2017 dt. 13/07/2017. But unfortunately on remand, the original authority vide Order-in-Original dt. 21/12/2018 did not consider the directions of the appellate authority and again came to the conclusion that the BAS provided by the appellant to its group companies outside India would be considered as intermediary services and cannot be treated as export of service. The appellant again filed an appeal against the said order and vide the impugned order Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal and upheld the order of the original authority hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Super Poly Fabriks Ltd. cited supra. Further I find that the appellant has satisfied all the six conditions of Rule 6A which proves that these services rendered by them are export of service. Further I find that in the case of AMD India Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, the Tribunal in para 6.1 has held as under:- 6.1. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record and the judgments relied upon by the appellant, I find that the appellant is a subsidiary of its holding company and is providing services under the Master Services Agreement and the same Master Services Agreement does not provide that the appellant will facilitate or will arrange the purchase and sale on behalf of the AMD entities ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
