2026 (1) TMI 581

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 01.04.2011; the Support Services included Operational Support Services in relation to advertising sales by M/s Teg U.K, Customer Liaison Services, Marketing and Promoting Services, Administrative Services, Collection of Payments, Invoicing etc; M/s Teg U.K. were paying cost plus 15% markup for the services provided by M/s Teg India; the appellants filed different refund claims under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No.27/2012, during the period under dispute i.e. October 2013 to March 2016, which came to be sanctioned by the Revenue vide two Orders dated 19.12.2016 and one Order dated 31.03.2017; the orders were not appealed against by the Revenue; subsequently, two show cause notices dated 28.03.2017, covering the period 01.07.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tinct supplies and the intermediary service provider should have the character of an agent, broker or any other similar person. In the instant case, this criterion is not satisfied and the agreement is on a principal-to principal basis independently and therefore, the services cannot be termed to be intermediary in nature; it was further clarified vide Circular No.230/24/2024-GST dated 10.09.2024 that services provided by an advertising agency/ company to a foreign company do not amount to intermediary service. He takes us through different clause of the agreement and submits that the services rendered in marketing and promotion, payment collection, invoicing and data research cannot be held to be intermediary services. He relies on the fol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....used the records of the case. The appellants challenged the impugned order on merits as well as legal points. On the legal point, the appellant submits that the Revenue has sanctioned the refunds, on the basis of the applications filed by the appellants, filed under Rule 5 of the CCR; the said refund orders have not been reviewed and appealed against; the said orders have not been set aside and therefore, have attained finality; it is not open for the Revenue to question the CENVAT credit availed without challenging the orders sanctioning refund. We find that Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. (supra) held as follows: 51. We are of the considered view that the paragraph extracted above is a comp....