CESTAT ruled that appellant's services cannot be classified as...

CESTAT ruled that appellant's services cannot be classified as "intermediary services" subject to demand from October 2014. The appellant merely facilitated sales between foreign sellers and Indian buyers, receiving commission from overseas customers in foreign exchange. The Tribunal held that an intermediary must mediate between a principal service provider and beneficiary, which was not applicable here. Following precedent in Textron India Private Limited, CESTAT determined the appellant provided export services rather than intermediary services. The appellant's role as a business facilitator receiving foreign commission for facilitating international sales qualified as export of services. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.