TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1066
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmission from the CPC Global in convertible foreign exchange in rendering the said service. On various input services used in providing the said output service, the Appellant has availed CENVAT Credit. Since the said services are exported, they have filed cash refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Alleging that the service provided by the appellant is not an 'export service' since they acted as an 'intermediary' defined under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 (POPS Rules in short), consequently as per Rule 9 of the said Rule the service provider is deemed to be situated in India, hence there cannot be export of service and accordingly cash refund of the credit is inadmissible; also (in Appeal No. 88913 of 2018) it is alleged that the input services are having no nexus with the output services exported, hence refund claim also not admissible. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeals. Hence, the present appeals. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that under Sales Promotion and Agency Agreement dated 14.09.2009,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f remuneration /compensation of the service rendered is with respect to formula based on the invoice price, it cannot be a reason to describe the role of appellant as intermediary. In support, he has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST, Chandigarh - 2018 (5) TMI 1417-CESTAT CHANDIGARH. 7. It is his contention that therefore the appellants are not rendering intermediary services within the meaning of Rule 2 (f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 and hence do not fall under Rule 9 of POPS Rules,2012. In support, he has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2019 (1) TIM 720-CESTAT MUMBAI and M/s R.S. Granite Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CGST&CE - 2019 (1) TMI 1179-CESTAT CHENNAI. 8. The learned Advocate further submitted that in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also had concluded that the services namely, Management and Business Consultant services, Business Auxiliary Service, Business Support Service, Membership of Club or Association, Convention Services, Renting of Immova....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CCR,2004 on the ground that the services rendered is not the export service under POPS Rules,2012 is contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Holtek Asia Pvt. Ltd. - 2018-TIOL-1888-CESTAT-MUM and also Softek India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore - 2018-TIOL-816-CESTATBANG. 10. Per contra, the learned AR for the Revenue has submitted that the appellant is subsidiary of Chevron Phillips Chemical International Holdings LLC, USA. Chevron Phillips Chemical Group, manufactures and markets chemicals including olefins and polyolefins, specially chemicals and plastics. Olefins and polyolefins include products of Ethylene, Polyethylene, Normal Alpha Olefins etc. The appellant is providing marketing and promotion services in relation to petrochemical products manufactured by its group entities under the Sales Promotion Agreement dated 14.09.2009. Referring to the clarification issued by the Board on the scope of intermediary services, the learned AR has submitted that - (a) An intermediary arranges or facilitates a provision of a 'main service' between two or more persons; (b) An intermediary is involved wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice, consequently no cash refund under the said rule is admissible even though credit is allowed and not disputed. 14. The appellant by an agreement with overseas company CPC Global agreed to provide service of sales promotion of the chemicals in the territory specified in the said agreement. The detailed of services required to be rendered in connection with sales promotion in defined territory are stated under the clause (3) of the said agreement. A plain reading of the same reveals that it is an agreement between the Appellant and the CPC Global and no mention of rendering of service to the clients of CPC Global or any other third party. For rendering such services, the appellants are entitled to commission stipulated under clause (5) of the agreement. For the purpose of measure of the remuneration/consideration for rendering the service the measure is certain percentage of the sale price of the chemicals which is paid to the Appellant by CPC Global. It is the contention of the appellant that they did not act as an intermediary between the CPC Global and any other person while rendering the service of promotion of sale of the goods in the defined territory. The Appellant are n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in our view because para 5.9.6 of The Education Guide issued by the CBEC clearly states:- "5.9.6 What are "Intermediary Services"? Generally, an "intermediary" is a person who arranges or facilitates a supply of goods, or a provision of service, or both, between two persons, without material alteration or further processing. Thus, an intermediary is involved with two supplies at any one time: i) The supply between the principal and the third party; and ii) The supply of his own service (agency service) to his principal, for which a fee or commission is usually charged. For the purpose of this rule, an intermediary in respect of goods (such as a commission agent i.e. a buying or selling agent, or a stockbroker) is excluded by definition." Thus while it is true that intermediary includes intermediary in respect of sale of goods, but legislature has while framing these rules deemed it fit to exclude the intermediaries in respect of sale of goods from the definition of intermediary. Hence we cannot sustain the view expressed by the Commissioner, contrary to the express definition of intermediary provided by the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. Hence in our vi....