Appellant's Services Classified as Export Eligible for Service Tax Refund

The Tribunal classified the services provided by the appellant under "support services of business or commerce" rather than "business auxiliary service." The appellant's services were determined not to be 'intermediary' services, establishing eligibility for export status. The services were considered an export, entitling the appellant to a refund of the Service Tax paid. The impugned Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of services rendered by the appellant.
2. Categorization of services as 'intermediary' and determination of 'export of service'.

Summary:

1. Classification of Services Rendered by the Appellant:
The appellant, M/s. SNQS International Socks Private Limited, provided various services including design and product development, evaluation of vendor facilities, quality monitoring, and logistics assistance to its foreign client, M/s. Primark, Dublin, Ireland. The appellant contended that these services should be classified under "support services of business or commerce" as per Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994, rather than "business auxiliary service" under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal found that the services provided by the appellant were comprehensive and included a wide range of activities from designing to export logistics, which fit more appropriately under "support services of business or commerce" rather than "business auxiliary service." This classification was supported by precedents such as Fifth Avenue v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2009 (15) S.T.R. 387 (Tri. - Chennai)] and GECAS Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, New Delhi [2014 (36) S.T.R. 556 (Tri. - Del.)].

2. Categorization of Services as 'Intermediary' and Determination of 'Export of Service':
The appellant argued that their services should not be categorized as 'intermediary' services, which would affect the place of provision of services and the eligibility for export status. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of 'intermediary' under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, and concluded that the appellant was providing services on their own account to the foreign client and not acting as an intermediary. The Tribunal referred to the Education Guide issued by the C.B.E.C. and the decision in In Re: GoDaddy India Web Services Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (46) S.T.R. 806 (A.A.R.)] to support this conclusion. Consequently, the place of provision of services was determined to be the location of the service recipient (outside India) as per Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. Since all conditions under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 were satisfied, the services were treated as export of services, making the appellant eligible for a refund of the erroneously paid Service Tax.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. CMB-CEX-000-APP-186-16 dated 10.08.2016 and allowed the appeal with consequential relief as per law. The services provided by the appellant were classified under "support services of business or commerce" and were deemed to be export of services, thereby entitling the appellant to a refund of the Service Tax paid.

---