2018 (5) TMI 1417

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Service and (B) Referral Service. In the case of service provided by the appellant no service tax was payable in view of Export of Service Rules and Board Circular No. 136/6/2011-ST dated 20.04.2011. W.e.f. 01.07.2012, the introduction of negative list, the services rendered to visa applicants became taxable and of that there is no dispute by the appellant but for the referral services which are in nature of the services rendered to foreign banks and foreign colleges. students who wish to get admission in foreign based colleges/universities and they approach the appellant who prepare their case and refer to foreign based colleges. In case college admit the student, the said college pays commissioner/fee to the appellant. Further, the peop....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant was rendering service of promotion or marketing of services provided by the clients i.e. providing Business Auxiliary Service which means that the appellant was providing main service i.e. Business Auxiliary Service to his clients namely banks and universities. Therefore, the appellant did not arrange or facilitate main service i.e. education or loan rendered by colleges/banks. Therefore, the appellant is not intermediary and the appellant is not liable to pay service tax in terms of Rule 6A of the Rules, 1994 read with Rule 9 of the said Rules. He further submits that the Revenue has wrongly invoked Rule 9 of the POPS Rules, 2012, but he submitted the Rules 3 of the said Rules is applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant is not intermediary, therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax post 01.07.2012. 8. In these set of facts, following issues emerges: (A) Whether the appellant is intermediary in terms of Rule 2(f) of POPS Rules, 2012 or not? (B) Whether the referral service in question rendered by the appellant amount to export of service or not? (C) Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable or not? 9. For better appreciation, the definition of intermediary has been defined under Rule 2(f) of POPS Rules, 2012 which is reproduced here as under: "Intermediary means a broker, an agent or any other person, by whatever name called, who arranges or facilitates a provisions of a service (hereinafter called the "main" servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in it has been observed as under: "10. The definition of "intermediary" as envisaged under Rule 2(f) of POS does not include a person who provides the main service on his own account. In the present case, applicant is providing main service, i.e. "business Support Service" to WWD US and on his account. Therefore, applicant is not an "intermediary" and the service provided by him is not intermediary service. Further, during arguments, applicant drew our attention to one of the illustration given under paragraph 5.9.6 of the Education Guide, 2012 issued by C.B.E. & C. Relevant is extracted as under; Similarly, persons such as call canters, who provide services to their clients by dealing with the customers of the client on the client's beh....