Intermediary service test: services to foreign clients on own account were treated as export of services, and remand was set aside.

Services rendered to foreign educational institutions on the client's own account, rather than as an arranger or facilitator between two parties, were treated as outside intermediary service and therefore as export of services, so the service tax demand could not stand. A remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was also held unjustified because the dispute was already covered by binding tribunal precedent on identical facts and the merits had been accepted in favour of the assessee; remitting the matter merely to await another pending case served no proper adjudicatory purpose. The remand order was set aside and final relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the services rendered to foreign educational institutions constituted intermediary services liable to service tax or export of services; and (ii) whether the remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) to await the outcome of another pending matter was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the services rendered to foreign educational institutions constituted intermediary services liable to service tax or export of services.

Analysis: The assessee's activity had already been examined in earlier tribunal decisions on the same statutory definition of intermediary service under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. The services were found to be rendered to foreign clients on their own account and not as an arranger or facilitator between two parties. On that reasoning, such services were held to fall outside intermediary service and to qualify as export of services. The same legal position was reiterated in subsequent tribunal orders covering an identical dispute.

Conclusion: The services were not intermediary services and were to be treated as export of services; the demand could not be sustained on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) to await the outcome of another pending matter was justified.

Analysis: The Commissioner (Appeals) had already accepted that the dispute stood covered in favour of the assessee on merits, and the departmental appeal on that issue was not pursued further. In those circumstances, remand solely to await a future decision in another matter was inconsistent with the binding effect of the existing tribunal rulings and served no legitimate adjudicatory purpose.

Conclusion: The remand order was unjustified and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the remand was annulled, and the assessee obtained final relief in the service tax dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an issue is already covered by binding precedent on identical facts, and the lower appellate authority has accepted that position on merits, it cannot remand the matter merely to await the outcome of another pending case; services rendered on own account to foreign clients are not intermediary services and may constitute export of services.

---