TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....brief, is that Appellant is engaged in providing Ship Management service involving Crew Management to its foreign associated company based in Hong Kong. The service recipient has been appointed by foreign vessel owner for their ship management activities. Appellant sought for refund of its accumulated CENVAT credit from October, 2016 to June, 2017 as per provision contained in Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 issued under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and it was rejected by an adjudication order dated 23.01.2018 on the ground that services rendered by Appellant were intermediary services and there export would attract Rule 9(c) of POPS Rules, 2002 as the place of provision of service would be treated as India for s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en imposed tax on the Appellant holding it as intermediary and sought recovery of the same that would justify the stand taken in the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. Referring to annexed contract copy and more particularly to its page 65 containing terms of the contract, he further argued that the contract is executed between two principals and not even a principal and its agent/broker or intermediary, as enumerated in sub- Rule f of Rule 2 of the POPS Rules, 2012 that would attract Rule, 9 for which he submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsustainable in law and is required to be set aside. 4. In response to such submissions, learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department Mr. Onil Shivad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntermediary and it is immaterial if he is called a broker or an agent or in any other name. Agreement copy at Annexure-2 clearly reveals that Appellant selects and trains crew members as an independent agency and provides the trained personnel to its overseas client namely M/s. Anglo-Eastern Tanker Management (Hong Kong) Ltd. The said service recipient provides entire ship management service to ship owners and in the process it recruits the crew members selected and trained by the Appellant. In the process, Appellant gets 15% as its remuneration over and above the amount spent in completing the recruitment process, training and making provision for Visas and travels for the crew members. This being facts on record, it can be said that only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in view of the fact of para 9(a) of the Agreement and its sub-para: "9(a) This Agreement is on a "Principal to Principal" basis. It is hereby clearly agreed and understood that the Manager is an independent employer and all personnel, employees engaged by them shall be employees of the Manager and not of the Service Provider. At no point of time the Service Provider shall be considered as Principal Employer relating to the personnel engaged/employed by the Manager and the Manager shall alone be responsible for payment of salaries, wages and other legal dues of the employees, for rendering services as contemplated herein." (emphasise supplied) Para 9(b) is also more categorical on the nature of relationship between the Appellant and it....