TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Services in respect of Export of Services. In some cases refund claims were sanctioned and in some cases, the refund claims were denied, therefore, both sides are in appeal. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that for the another period in their own case, this Tribunal has already allowed the refund claim by vide Final Order No. 60151/2018 dated 27.02.2018, therefore, the impugned orders rejecting the refund claims are to be set aside and refunds be sanctioned. 5. Heard the parties. 6. Considering the fact that on the identical issue in the assessee's own case for the another period, this Tribunal has observed as under:- "6. Before going through the legal aspect of the case. first we have to see terms of the agreement between the appellant and the Evalueserve Ltd., Bermuda which are reproduced here under: 1.A The Company shall provide the services to the customers of the client in accordance with the requirement as specified by the Client. Client passes the customer requirements and details of the deliverables to the Company. The Company shall directly interact with the customers of the Client, as and when required and hence would provide the Services to such custom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereinafter called the "main" service) or a supply of goods, between two or more persons, but does not include a person who provides the main service or supplies the goods on his account. 11. On going through the agreement placed before us, the appellants are themselves engaged in providing of services to their client and the facilitating their clients for providing those services by third party. In that circumstance, it is to be seen whether the provider of services is covered as intermediary or not. We have gone through the impugned order also. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has fell in error holding that the appellant provided services on behalf of Evalueserve Ltd., Bermuda. In fact, the appellant has provided the services to customers of their Client and having no direct nexus with the customers of their client has been provided by the appellant to their client and nowhere has facilitated or arranged for the services provided to their client by third party. Furthermore, the appellant has themselves provided the services to their client as the main service provider on principal to principal basis, therefore, the activity undertaken by the appellant do not qua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y various Indian entities to their overseas customers in India as a single package. Further, supporting the business of GoDaddy US in India is the main service and processing payments and oversight of services of third party Call Centers are ancillary and incidental to the provision of main service, i.e., business support service. Further, applicant would provide said services as a package and the payment for the entire package would be a consolidated lump sum payment. Applicant submits that in view of all these indicators, service provided by them to GoDaddy US is a bundle of services, which is bundled in normal course of business. This point has not been controverted by the Revenue. We agree with the submissions of the applicant that proposed services are a bundle of services, bundled in normal course of business and not intermediary service. 13. In view of above, we rule as under; In the facts and circumstances, the various support services proposed to be provided by the applicant to GoDaddy US are a "bundle of Services" being naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business and accordingly is a single service, being business support service, in terms of Section 66F of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Calls; (ii) Processing Reservations; (iii) Processing Payments. Thus in LBF is not falling under the definition of intermediary and shall not fall under Rule of the Place of Provisions Rules, 2012. In order to support their contentions, they relied upon the illustrations given on pave NO.69 under paragraph .5.9.6 of the "Taxation of Services: An Education Guide" issued by Central Board of Excise & Customs. Relevant portion is extracted as under: "Similarly, persons such as call centres, who provide services to their clients by dealing with the customers of the client on the client's behalf, but actually provided these services on their own account, will not be categorized as intermediaries". Reliance can also be placed on the ruling of Authority for Advance Ruling (Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax), New Delhi on the application of M/s. GoDaddy India Web Services Pvt. Ltd., vide Ruling No.AAR/ST/08/2016 in Application No.AAR/44/ST/15/2014 dated 04th March, 2016. The ruling of the said application is explained in detail herein below: "....... Section 66F of the Finance Act,1994, read with rules 2(f), 3 and 9 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and Rule 6A ....