2025 (9) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case in brief are that the Appellant is a private limited company incorporated in India providing business support services to a company situated in Singapore. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting refund claimed for the period January 2016 to March 2016, April 2016 to June 2016, July 2016 to September 2016 & October 2016 to December 2016 vide order dated 29.08.2019. The refund for the period from July 2012 to March 2015 was decided by way of Order-in-Original dated 18.12.2015 wherein it was specifically confirmed that Appellant is engaged in providing business support services, though the refund was denied on grounds of procedural default. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, Ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he ground that the revision application for the period July 2012 to March 2015 was pending. Against the said order, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. Meanwhile the revision order has already been passed on 14.03.2023 and therefore the Commissioner's order dated 29.08.2019 on that ground do not survive. Furthermore, for period January 2017 to June 2017 wherein Commissioner (Appeals) gave a specific finding vide its order dated 18.09.2020 that the Appellant is providing business support services has attained finality as the Department has not further litigated. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 4. I find that the company has entered into an agreement with its client M/s Polyplastics Asia Pacific (S) PTE Ltd PAPSPL.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....taxable under the said category w.e.f 01-05-2006. 5. I find that it is not the case where the Appellant is acting on behalf of PAPASL. It is an admitted fact that Appellant is not representing any particular person or the party nor does it sells the product of the PAPSPL. It is the PAPSPL who decides with whom agreement has to be entered based on the offers received from various customers depending on the above factors. Rule 9 of The Place of Provision of Supply Rules, 2012, Rules states that for the following services:- 1. Services provided by a banking company, or a financial institution, or a non-banking financial company, to account holders, 2. Online information and database access or retrieval services 3. Intermediary services....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de. PAPSPL sells its goods directly to the customers who place the Purchase order to the PAPSPL and the Appellant Company has no role to play in the same. I find that the services are covered under the Business Support Service and thus should not be classified as the Intermediary service. Hence, the Appellant should not be considered as an intermediary between the transactions effected by the PAPSPL since the service provided to the PAPSPL is entirely on the principal to principal basis and consideration received for providing services based upon cost plus markup and nowhere connected with the main supply of goods. The main supply of the goods may or may not happen and thus cannot be directly correlated with the service provided. Hence, the....