AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....different Schott business units who are engaged in manufacturing activity outside India. The appellant are availing CENVAT Credit of duty paid inputs, input services and capital goods as per the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. During course of the audit of the financial records of the appellant, it is noticed by the department that appellant were providing 'Intermediary' services classifiable as business auxiliary services within taxable territory to different foreign recipient namely M/s. Schott Glass Ag (Germany), M/s. Duran Group, M/s Otto Schott and Barberini Germany. 1.1. The appellant have filed Service Tax returns showing their activity as "Export of Service" and no Service Tax has been paid on the Commission earned by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arges of the show cause notice has been confirmed by the learned Adjudicating Authority. The appellant have approached the office of the Commissioner (Appeal), however they do not succeed in their appeal at the level of the Commissioner (Appeal) also, who vide his order in Appeal dated 25th September, 2017 have rejected the contentions raised by the appellant. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that appellant have entered into various agreement with companies located outside India to market and promote sale of their products. It has been the contention of the learned Advocate that the services have been provided by the appellant for companies located outside India and services have also been used by the recipie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of transport, upto a period of one month. The meaning of Intermediary' as provided under Rule 2(f) of the POPS Rules, 2012, as prevailing upt to 30-09-2014, is reproduced as under Rule 2 (f): "intermediary" means a broker, an agent or any other person, by whatever name called, who arranges or facilitates a provision of a service (hereinafter called the 'main' service) between two or more persons, but does not include a person who provides the main service on his account:" 2.4. Learned Advocate has contended that : (i) in terms of the provisions of Rule 9 of POPS Rules, 2012 and meaning of Intermediary as provided under Rule 2(f) of the POPS Rules, 2012, the appellant submit that the said Rule 9 is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion No. 14/2014 ST dated 11-07 2014, the definition of Intermediary as prescribed in the POPS Rules, 2012 has been amended w.e.f. 01-10-2014. The amended definition is reproduced as under: "Intermediary" means a broker, an agent or any other person, by whatever name called, who arranges or facilitates a prevision of a service (hereinafter 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. In terms of the amended definition, referred to above, it would be found that the definition of Intermediary has been amended by incorporating the wordings a supply of goods. Thus, w.e.f. 01-10-2014, the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the appellant that the demand is partially barred by limitation, as previously the demand vide show cause notice dated 13.10.2008 for the period March, 2005 to March, 2008 has already been issued while another show cause notice dated 29.06.2009 covering the period from April to September, 2008 was also issued. 2.7. Learned Advocate has pointed out that the demand for the earlier period has already been raised and demand for the subsequent period has been raised beyond normal period prescribed under the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. It is submitted that there is no suppression of any facts with an intention to evade Service Tax and since all the facts were in the knowledge of the department, it was wrong on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeal. We also find that this Tribunal in case of M/s. SNQS International Socks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CGST & C. Ex. reported under (2023) 10 Centax 395 (Tri.-Mad), which has also been endorsed by the Apex Court vide their order dated 23.11.2023, has decided similar issue in favour of the assesse. We also take note of the fact that the learned Advocate has also submitted certain extra document including certain copies of the purchase orders which indicated that the order were placed directly to foreign supplier and the appellant has relied upon these evidences to support his stand that they have not been working as intermediary rather they have worked as an agent for sale and promotion of the product in India and thus the exported the services to t....