TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e which led to the issue of impugned order was dated 16.11.2015 covering the extended period of 1.7.2012 to 13.9.2015. In the impugned order, the demand for the extended period has been dropped and, therefore, the same is not in dispute. 2. The appellant is a subsidiary of M/s IDP, Australia and is registered under the Companies Act and has its corporate office in Gurgaon. Australian universities/institutions are treated as "Education Service Providers" under the Australian law and have to follow the National Code and the "universities Australia Code of practice". In order to meet these requirements, the universities have to recruit students of high quality. Therefore, the universities entered into an agreement with M/s IDP, Australia and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing through the said agreement between M/s IDP Australia and M/s IDP India, and the nature of activities carried out by M/s IDP India, it is clear that support service used as nomenclature for describing the said agreement, is a misnomer. Though the said agreement defines Recruitment Services, Office Services and also the commissions for both these services, it is but obvious that M/s IDP India were promoting the business of 'Foreign Education Service Providers' while facilitating activity of student recruitment, in India. In fact, the activity of arranging or facilitating recruitment of student in India, is the essential character of the said agreement. The nomenclature and definitions in the said agreement cannot alter the very nature of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ows : 5. He asserts that the appellant does not qualify as an 'intermediary' since the conditions enumerated under the definition of intermediary in Rule 2(l) of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, because; (a) The appellant is neither 'broker' nor an 'agent' of IDP Australia. (b) The appellant is not arranging or facilitating provision of 'student recruitment services' but is providing the "student recruitment services" on its own account to its principal, who, in turn, provide the services to the universities (c) An 'intermediary', typically arranges or facilitates the provision of a service by arranging for a third party to provide the service, which is not at all the situation here. (d) The appellant has no privity of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the service being provided by IDP Australia to Australian universities. * The value of the main service is also fixed and IDP India cannot change it. * Para 4 of the National Code recognizes IDP Australia as an education agent. * Para 4.4 of the National Code recognizes IDP India as sub-contractor of that agent. This document signifies existence of a tripartite arrangement between the three parties. * As per New International Websters Comprehensive Dictionary, facilitate means to make easier or more convenient. Hence the word 'facilitate' is a more comprehensive word than 'arrange' and includes provision of part of the main service. * I Rely on case law of Mcgaw -Ravindra Laboratories [1992 (960) ELT 71 (GUJ) and Dharampal Premc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e foreign universities and IDP Australia. All that is evident from the records is that the appellant is providing the services which have been sub-contracted to it by M/s IDP Australia. As a sub contractor, it is receiving commission from the main contractor for its services. The main contractor - IDP Australia, in turn, is receiving commission from the foreign universities who pay a percentage of the tuition fee to IDP Australia. From the records, we find that Revenue has not established that the appellant is acting as an intermediary between M/s IDP Australia and the foreign universities, as alleged or held in the impugned order and the show cause notice. Hence, we find in favour of the appellant on merits. 9. We also find that on the ex....