TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... studies abroad. For carrying out this activity, the appellant tied up with various universities all over the world. Under its agreements with the Universities, the appellant agreed to enlighten the prospective students in India with the opportunities abroad and the courses offered by the universities. The said agreements with the Foreign Universities usually encapsulated the following activities to be performed by the Appellant. a. Promoting of universities in seminars or education fairs organized by schools; b. Counseling of prospective students about suitable courses and universities depending upon their profile; c. Making students aware of other costs associated with staying and studying abroad; d. Forwarding profiles of students to the admission department of the universities; and e. Upon finalization of admission, conveying the same to the student and ensuring that relevant fee is paid by the student to the university and the student applies for the relevant visa. 3. Once students had been enrolled in the Universities, the Appellant raised invoices on the Universities for its fee, in lieu of the promotional and marketing activit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h would be taxable in the hands of the Appellant and do not qualify as exports. Further, the exemption under SI. No. 9 of the Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012 was denied on the ground that in terms of Section 66F of the Act, the services provided by the Appellant were more specifically classifiable under intermediary services, and cannot be treated as education auxiliary services. Also, the exemption of auxiliary education services can only be extended in the taxable territory, but as the Service provider of education service was located outside the territory, the exemption cannot be extended. Hence, the present appeal was filed before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative for the department. Both the learned counsel and learned Authorized Representative submitted that the instant issue stood covered by the decision of this Tribunal in appellant's own case of TC Global India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Director General, DGCEI, New Delhi [2024 (12) TMI 1194-CESTAT New Delhi, Final Order No.59883/2024 dated 13.12.2024]. 5. We note that the issue in this appeal is no more res-integra, as it is cover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may, as 'principal,' authorize another to do for him, and in accordance with the maxim, qui facit per alium facit per se, to fix him with the same liability in contract or tort as f he had done it himself." 21. Broker has been defined by the same reference as under: "Broker [fr. broceur, Fr., a person who breaks into small pieces), (1) an agent employed to make bargains and contracts between other persons in matters of trade, commerce and navigation, by explaining the intentions of both parties, and negotiating in such a manner as to put those who employ him in a condition to treat together personally: (2) and, more commonly, an agent employed by one party only to make a binding contract with another. As evident above, the common aspect in both the above engagements is the relationship of agent-principle. This relationship has been coded in Indian Contracts Act, 1872 and has binding implications for both the parts viz. agent as well as principle. We shall now explain the relationship between the agent and principle for better understanding of this engagement and its application to NNCCPL contracts. 22. The law of agency as defined in Cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to potential Applicants and/or any students of the university. (2) The Consultant warrants that it will make no representations to potential students as to the likelihood of success of their applications to the University or, if accepted, as to the likelihood of success in their courses of study undertaken at the university. The Consultant shall indemnify and keep indemnified the University from and against any loss damage or liability suffered and legal fees and costs incurred by the University as a result of the Consultant's breach of this clause. Insearch Partner Program Agreement (3) The Partner is not an agent of insearch and has no authority to any contract or other legal obligation, incur any liability on Insearch's behalf, or receive any money (including without limitation fees) on Insearch's behalf. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no legal relationship of any kind between the partner and any related entity or joint venture partner of Insearch, including but not limited to the University of Technology, Sydney. American University of Barbados (4) Not to describe himself as an Advisor or representative of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccordance with item (b) of Explanation 2 of clause (44) of section 65B of the Act. (2) Where any service is exported, the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate of service tax or duty paid on input services or inputs, as the case may be, used in providing such service and the rebate shall be allowed subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be specified, by the Central Government, by notification." 28. Therefore, if following conditions of Rule 6A will get satisfied, then the service will amount to 'Export of service' and hence, it will be outside the ambit of service tax. A the provider of service is located in the taxable territory B. the recipient of service is located outside India. C. the service is not a service specified in section 66D of the Act. D. the place of provision of the service is outside India. E. the payment for such service has been received by the provider of service in convertible foreign exchange, and F. the provider of service and recipient of service are not merely establishments of a distinct person in accordance with item (b)of Explanation 3 of clau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Del.) observed that the recipient of the service is determined by the contract between the parties and who has the contractual right to receive the ST/53328/2018 service and who is responsible for the payment for the service and the department has lost sight of this essential difference. The High Court of Delhi then considered the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Paul Merchants Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2012 (12) TMI 424-CESTAT-DEL.-LB which was rendered with reference to ESR, 2005 where the assessees were intermediary agents, providing money transfer services to foreign travellers, who were the end user on behalf of their principals and the contention of the department that this did not qualify as export of service was rejected referring to the CBEC clarification letter no. 334/1/2019- TRU dated 26.02.2010 that as long as the party abroad is deriving benefit from service in India, it is an export of service. The relevant paras of the decision in Verizon Communication India Private Limited (supra) is quoted as under:- "51. In the considered view of the Court, the judgment of the CESTAT in Paul Merchants Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra) is right in holding th....