The services provided by the appellant, a referral service for Canadian banks and foreign universities, were examined to determine whether they constituted 'Export of Services' exempt from service tax or were classifiable as 'Intermediary Service' under the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. The Tribunal relied on the Genpact case, which outlined three conditions for an 'Intermediary': principal-agency relationship, facilitation of service by a third party, and not performing the main service itself. The Tribunal found that in a previous case for the same services, it had held that the appellant's services did not fall under 'Intermediary Services' and satisfied the conditions for 'Export of Services', hence not liable for service tax. This decision was appealed by the Revenue but later withdrawn. Regarding the extended period of limitation invoked, the Tribunal held it was bad in law as the appellant's activities were known to the department from the previous case. The demand for interest and penalties was also set aside as the service tax demand itself was unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The services provided by the appellant, a referral service for Canadian banks and foreign universities, were examined to determine whether they constituted 'Export of Services' exempt from service tax or were classifiable as 'Intermediary Service' under the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. The Tribunal relied on the Genpact case, which outlined three conditions for an 'Intermediary': principal-agency relationship, facilitation of service by a third party, and not performing the main service itself. The Tribunal found that in a previous case for the same services, it had held that the appellant's services did not fall under 'Intermediary Services' and satisfied the conditions for 'Export of Services', hence not liable for service tax. This decision was appealed by the Revenue but later withdrawn. Regarding the extended period of limitation invoked, the Tribunal held it was bad in law as the appellant's activities were known to the department from the previous case. The demand for interest and penalties was also set aside as the service tax demand itself was unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
