Export services to foreign clients ruled as principal transactions, not intermediary services under tax law

CESTAT Chennai held that appellant's services to foreign clients were not intermediary services but principal-to-principal transactions. Despite remuneration being computed on FOB value of exported garments, appellant directly provided services to overseas buyers without agreements with domestic vendors/exporters. Appellant received no consideration from Indian vendors, failing to meet intermediary service conditions. The tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 08.07.2019, ruling extended limitation period and penalties inapplicable since services were not intermediary in nature. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Classification of Services as 'Intermediary'
2. Determination of 'Export of Service'
3. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation
4. Imposition of Penalty

Summary:

1. Classification of Services as 'Intermediary':

The appellant, M/s. SNQS International Socks Pvt. Ltd., provided services including design and development of products, evaluation and development of vendors, quality assurance, and logistical support to foreign clients. The Department classified these services as 'intermediary' under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, as amended. The appellant contended that their services were 'support services of business or commerce' and not intermediary services. The Tribunal, referencing its previous decision in the appellant's own case, held that the services provided were not intermediary services but support services of business or commerce, thus not liable to Service Tax as intermediary services.

2. Determination of 'Export of Service':

The Tribunal examined whether the services rendered by the appellant could be categorized as 'export of service' under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. It was determined that all conditions for export of service were met, including the location of the service recipient being outside India and payment received in convertible foreign exchange. Consequently, the services were classified as export of services, making them eligible for the benefits applicable to export services.

3. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:

The Department issued a Show Cause Notice invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, alleging suppression of facts by the appellant. The appellant argued that they had disclosed their activities and filed for a refund of Service Tax paid erroneously, demonstrating a bona fide interpretation of the law. The Tribunal, aligning with its decision that the services were not intermediary, found no grounds for invoking the extended period.

4. Imposition of Penalty:

The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty under Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, but reduced it to fifty percent for part of the period in question. The Department contended that the penalty should have been equal to the Service Tax determined. However, since the Tribunal concluded that the services were not intermediary and were export services, the question of penalty imposition became moot.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original No. 08/2019-COMMR. dated 08.07.2019, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per the law and disposing of the Department's cross-objection accordingly. The services provided by the appellant were classified as 'support services of business or commerce' and treated as export of services, exempting them from Service Tax under the intermediary category.

---