2022 (12) TMI 1489

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of the view that the prayer made therein can be considered favorably for grant of out-of-turn hearing of appeal. Therefore, the miscellaneous application filed by the applicant is allowed. Since the issue involved in this appeal lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of both sides, the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal today. 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise, Navi Mumbai. Vide the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 6,37,70,061/- along with interest and also imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellant. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is providing sales promot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the impugned order, appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the relationship between the appellant and the overseas entity is not that of principal-agent or broker-principal and therefore, it cannot be termed as intermediary for denying the benefit of refund provided under Rule 5 ibid. The learned Advocate further submitted that the issue involved in this case has already been settled in the Final Order No. A/87373- 87378/2019 dated 20.12.2019 passed by this Tribunal in the case of the appellant. Thus, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order, rejecting the benefit of refund application and subsequent confirming the adjudged demands ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....auses in the agreement vis-à-vis the statutory provisions, it is abundantly clear that the services provided by the appellant to the overseas entity qualify as export in terms of Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. 8. We find that by reading the contents of the said agreement dated 14.09.2009 entered into between the appellant herein and the self same overseas entity, this Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself, vide Final Order No. A/87373-87378/2019 dated 20.12.2019 has held that the appellant cannot be termed as an intermediary. The relevant paragraph in the said order is extracted herein below:- "17. For the period after 1.10.2014, on merit also, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... principal basis. Thus, the appellant cannot be termed as an intermediary between the overseas entity and the Indian customers. It is an admitted fact on record that the consideration received by the appellant for providing the services was based upon cost plus markup and is nowhere connected with the main supply of goods. In other words, the main supply may or may not happen and thus, cannot be directly correlated with the service provided by the appellant. Thus, the appellant is not acting as a bridge between the overseas group entities and supplies made to their customers in India and accordingly, it cannot be said that the appellant has provided intermediary service and should be governed under the provisions of Rule 9 of the rules." ....