Appellant not liable for service tax under Rule 2(f) & Rule 9. Refund claim deemed admissible.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was not considered an intermediary under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. Therefore, they were not liable to pay service tax under Rule 9. As a result, the appellant's refund claim was deemed admissible. The previous decision rejecting the refund claim was overturned, and the appellant's appeal was successful, granting them consequential relief.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Classification of services as intermediary services under Rule 2(f) of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012.
3. Applicability of Rule 9 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012.
4. Principles of natural justice and consistency in judicial decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Refund Claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The appellant filed a refund claim for the period April 2015 to September 2015 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Notification No. 27/2012 dated 18.06.2012, for unutilized Cenvat credit availed on input services used for providing taxable services under the category of Business Auxiliary Services in respect of Export of Services. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected it, asserting that the appellant provided intermediary services and was required to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism, thus disqualifying them from claiming a refund of unutilized Cenvat credit.

2. Classification of Services as Intermediary Services under Rule 2(f) of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012:
The appellant contended that they did not qualify as an intermediary under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, as they provided the main service directly to their client, Evalueserve Ltd., Bermuda, and not to their client's customers. The definition of "intermediary" under Rule 2(f) states that an intermediary arranges or facilitates the provision of a service or supply of goods between two or more persons but does not include a person who provides the main service on his own account. The Tribunal found that the appellant provided services directly to their client and not as an intermediary, as they did not facilitate or arrange services provided by a third party.

3. Applicability of Rule 9 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012:
Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, specifies that the place of provision of intermediary services is the location of the service provider. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant's services fell under this rule, making them liable to pay service tax in India. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the appellant provided the main service on a principal-to-principal basis and did not act as an intermediary. Therefore, Rule 9 did not apply, and the appellant was not liable to pay service tax in India.

4. Principles of Natural Justice and Consistency in Judicial Decisions:
The appellant argued that the same Commissioner (Appeals) had taken a contrary view in a similar case involving M/s. LBF Travel India Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the services provided were not intermediary services. The Tribunal noted this inconsistency and emphasized the need for adherence to principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also referred to decisions by the Advance Rulings Authority of India in the cases of Universal Services India Pvt. Ltd. and GoDaddy India Web Services Pvt. Ltd., which supported the appellant's position that they were not intermediaries.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not an intermediary under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, and thus not liable to pay service tax under Rule 9. Consequently, the refund claim filed by the appellant was admissible. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---