Services Not Intermediary Under Rule 2(f); Treated as Export Under Rule 6A and Rule 3, Refund Restored

CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, holding that the services provided to the foreign recipient did not qualify as "intermediary services" under Rule 2(f) of POPS, 2012. The Tribunal found no involvement of three parties, no distinct main and ancillary supplies, and no principal-agent relationship under the contracts. Applying CBIC Circular dated 20.09.2021 and Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Rule 3 of POPS, 2012, it held the services were exports. Consequently, Rule 9 of POPS was inapplicable, and the denial of refund of unutilized CENVAT credit was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and refunds restored.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the services rendered under the "Technical Service", "Sales Manager" and "Corporate Key Account Management" agreements are export of services in terms of Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, or are taxable in India by application of Rule 4 and/or Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012.

1.2 Whether the appellant qualifies as an "intermediary" under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 so as to shift the place of provision to India under Rule 9.

1.3 Whether Rule 4(a) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 is attracted on the basis that goods were "physically made available" in India by the service recipient for testing and demonstration, thereby rendering the services taxable in India.

1.4 Whether, on the above premises, the appellant is entitled to refund of unutilised CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.), and whether the appellate interference setting aside the original sanction of refund was legally sustainable.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2: Characterisation as export of service vs. intermediary services

Legal framework discussed

2.1 The Tribunal examined Rule 2(f), Rule 3, Rule 4 and Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, and Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. It relied on the statutory definition of "intermediary" under Rule 2(f) and on the principle that, under Rule 3, the place of provision is the location of the service recipient, except where a specific rule (such as Rule 4 or Rule 9) applies. The Tribunal also considered CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST, which clarifies the essential elements of "intermediary" services.

Interpretation and reasoning - nature of services and recipient

2.2 On examination of the three agreements, the Tribunal found that the appellant's obligations were to promote and solicit orders for the overseas entity's products, conduct technical promotion and demonstrations, scout and manage key accounts, undertake project tracking and reporting, and provide market-related inputs. All these services were contractually rendered to and for the benefit of the overseas entity located outside India; any sales to Indian customers were to be concluded only upon acceptance by the overseas entity.

2.3 The agreements expressly stated that the appellant was not authorised to enter into or conclude contracts, negotiate or decide prices, or make any commitments on behalf of the overseas entity. The relationship was characterised as that of independent contractor and contractee, not principal and agent. Consideration was on a cost-plus/commission basis linked to costs and expenses of the appellant, and not directly contingent upon the actual sale of products in India.

2.4 On these contractual terms, the Tribunal held that the appellant did not act on behalf of the overseas entity in such a manner as to bind it vis-à-vis end customers, and did not provide any services to Indian customers "on behalf of" the overseas entity. The services were directly provided to the overseas entity alone.

Interpretation and reasoning - test for "intermediary"

2.5 Referring to Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 and the CBIC circular, the Tribunal held that the essential features of "intermediary" services are: (i) involvement of a minimum of three parties; (ii) existence of two distinct supplies - a main supply between two principals and an ancillary supply of arranging or facilitating that main supply; and (iii) the intermediary merely arranges or facilitates and does not itself provide the main supply.

2.6 Applying these tests, the Tribunal found that: (a) there was no tri-partite framework whereby the appellant arranged or facilitated a main supply between two principals; (b) the appellant itself provided the substantive marketing and promotion services to the overseas entity; and (c) there was no distinct "main" and "ancillary" supply in the sense contemplated by the intermediary definition. Accordingly, the appellant could not be categorised as an intermediary.

2.7 The Tribunal rejected the conclusion in the impugned order that the appellant was "acting as an agent" or intermediary, holding that such conclusion was contrary to the express contractual terms and to the CBIC clarification and judicial precedents that require a principal-agent relationship and representative authority to bind the principal.

Interpretation and reasoning - export of services

2.8 Having ruled out the applicability of Rule 9 (intermediary services), the Tribunal applied Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. Since the service recipient (the overseas entity) was located outside India, and the services were contractually provided to it, the place of provision was held to be outside India.

2.9 The Tribunal examined Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and observed that the following conditions stood satisfied: (i) the service provider was located in the taxable territory (India); (ii) the recipient of service was located outside India; (iii) the services were not specified in the negative list; (iv) the place of provision was outside India in terms of Rule 3; and (v) consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange. On these parameters, the services qualified as "export of services".

2.10 The Tribunal relied on prior decisions which held that, in similar factual matrices involving promotion and marketing services for foreign principals and receipt of foreign exchange, the services are to be treated as export of services and are not chargeable to service tax, emphasising that the relevant test is the location of the service recipient and the place of consumption, not merely the place of performance.

Conclusions on Issues 1 & 2

2.11 The Tribunal concluded that the appellant does not satisfy the statutory definition of "intermediary" under Rule 2(f), and hence Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 is inapplicable.

2.12 The place of provision of services rendered under the three agreements is determined by Rule 3 as the location of the recipient (outside India). The services, therefore, qualify as export of services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and are not liable to service tax in India.

Issue 3: Applicability of Rule 4(a) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 (services in respect of goods made physically available)

Legal framework discussed

2.13 The Tribunal considered Rule 4(a) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, which provides that where services are supplied in respect of goods that are required to be made physically available by the service recipient to the service provider (or a person acting on his behalf), the place of provision is where the services are actually performed.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.14 The Tribunal noted the Department's contention that testing and demonstration activities on materials such as sand, cement and water supplied in India would attract Rule 4(a), since the services were performed in India in relation to goods.

2.15 The Tribunal held that Rule 4(a) requires the goods to be "physically made available" by the service recipient to the service provider. In the present case, the materials used for testing and demonstration were provided by the Indian customers of the overseas entity, not by the overseas recipient itself. The overseas entity did not have any fixed establishment in India and did not itself provide or make available the goods in India to the appellant. Accordingly, the fundamental condition of Rule 4(a) was not satisfied.

2.16 The Tribunal further relied on judicial precedent clarifying that where samples or goods are procured independently by the service provider (and not made available by the foreign service recipient), Rule 4(a) cannot be invoked and the default rule (Rule 3) applies. It also took note of reasoning that if the goods cease to exist in the form supplied, or are not returned, the services cannot be said to be "in respect of goods" in the sense intended by Rule 4(1).

2.17 On a purposive interpretation, the Tribunal observed that Rule 4 is a specific exception carved out to address certain situations where taxing jurisdiction would otherwise be lost if only Rule 3 were applied. It is not intended to convert export transactions into taxable ones merely because some activities or handling of goods occur in India, particularly when the goods are not made available by the foreign recipient and the service is effectively consumed by the foreign entity.

Conclusions on Issue 3

2.18 The Tribunal held that Rule 4(a) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 is not attracted, as the goods used for testing and demonstration were not physically made available by the foreign service recipient to the appellant. Consequently, the place of provision cannot be shifted to India under Rule 4(a), and Rule 3 continues to govern, leading to classification of the services as export of services.

Issue 4: Entitlement to refund of unutilised CENVAT credit and validity of appellate interference

Legal framework discussed

2.19 The Tribunal considered Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, read with Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.), which permits refund of unutilised CENVAT credit where output services are exported without payment of service tax. The Tribunal also referred to earlier precedent recognising that once services qualify as export, refund of accumulated CENVAT credit is admissible.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.20 The original authority had sanctioned substantial portions of the appellant's refund claims for unutilised CENVAT credit, recognising that the appellant's services were exported business auxiliary services without payment of service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed this view, inter alia, by treating the services as performed in India and/or as intermediary services.

2.21 Having held, on merits, that: (i) the appellant's services qualify as export of services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012; (ii) Rule 4(a) and Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 are inapplicable; and (iii) there is no taxable service liability in India for the services in question, the Tribunal held that the necessary statutory precondition under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - namely, export of output services without payment of tax - stood fully satisfied.

2.22 The Tribunal also relied on consistent judicial views that exports (including export of services) are not intended to bear the burden of domestic indirect taxes, and that denial of refund in such circumstances is contrary to the export-neutrality principle embedded in the statutory scheme.

Conclusions on Issue 4

2.23 The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the original orders sanctioning refund by wrongly invoking Rule 4 and Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 and mischaracterising the appellant's services as intermediary or non-export services.

2.24 The impugned order was held to be legally unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the position that the appellant is entitled to refund of unutilised CENVAT credit as originally sanctioned, with consequential relief as per law.

---