CESTAT remands intermediary services case for fresh consideration on classification and extended limitation period applicability

CESTAT Ahmedabad remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration regarding classification of intermediary services and applicability of extended limitation period. The appellant provided intermediary services to foreign recipients from July 2012 to September 2015 without paying Service Tax, claiming services were exported. Department contended services were business auxiliary services within taxable territory. CESTAT noted similar demand for March 2005 to September 2008 was dropped by department, and relied on precedent from SNQS International case endorsed by SC. The Authority was directed to make specific findings on extended limitation period applicability.

---

---

Issues:
Intermediary services provided by the appellant within taxable territory, Classification of services as export of service, Applicability of Service Tax on services provided to foreign companies, Bar on the period of limitation for the show cause notice.

Intermediary Services:
The appellant, a manufacturer of neutral glass tubes, was providing 'Intermediary' services to foreign companies within the taxable territory, as per the audit findings. The department issued a show cause notice demanding Service Tax payment under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994, which was confirmed in the Order-In-Original and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeal).

Classification of Services:
The appellant contended that the services provided fell under the category of export of services, as they were engaged in marketing and promoting products for foreign companies outside India. The appellant argued that the services were used by the recipients outside India and should not be subject to Service Tax.

Applicability of Service Tax:
The appellant argued that the demand for Service Tax was not sustainable under Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, as the appellant did not arrange or facilitate services between two or more persons but facilitated the supply of goods. The appellant also highlighted the amendment in the definition of 'Intermediary' from 01-10-2014, which included the arrangement or facilitation of a supply of goods.

Period of Limitation:
The appellant contended that the demand was partially barred by limitation, as previous demands for the period from 2005 to 2008 had already been raised. The appellant argued that there was no suppression of facts to evade Service Tax, and the demand for the subsequent period was beyond the normal limitation period.

Decision:
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the original Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration, directing a specific finding on the applicability of the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal considered the previous decisions and additional documents provided by the appellant, indicating that the appellant may not have been working as an intermediary but as an agent for the sale and promotion of products in India, thereby exporting services to their principals outside India. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

---