TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erprises; the overseas entity has entered into agreements with various companies located overseas to assist them in sourcing the products from various countries; the overseas entity was entered into an agreement, dated 13.02.2007, called 'Agreement for Services'; in terms of the agreement, the appellant was required to provide a host of services, including market and product research, support services, consultation, information and other advisory services in relation to overall operations of the overseas entity in India; the appellant charges the overseas entity on a cost plus markup of 8% basis. The services provided by the appellant are covered under Export of Service as per Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994; however, due to a mistaken belief, the appellants discharged the service tax for the period October 2014 to September 2015. 2.1 On realizing their mistake, the appellants filed two refund claims, for Rs.4,75,53,937/- and Rs.11,84,19,892/- on 04.02.2016, which were rejected vide OIO dated 27.03.2017; an appeal filed by the appellants came to be rejected vide impugned OIA dated 29.09.2017. The same is under challenge vide Appeal No. ST/60064/2018. For the period afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... • Business service support being the main service is undoubtedly being provided by the Appellant on its own • Merely sourcing information and giving details of research does not amount to intermediary between and either • The Appellant is not involved either in the execution of the contract between the suppliers and the Customers of the Overseas Entity or with the actual supply of goods by such suppliers to such Customers. • The Appellant does not have any contract with either the suppliers in India or the Customers of the Overseas Entity 4. Learned Counsel further submits that the issue is no longer res integra having been decided by the High Courts and the Tribunal; moreover, CBEC Circulars No. 186/5/2015 - ST dated 05.10.2015 and 159/15/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021 clarify the concept of intermediary in the Service Tax Regime and GST Regime; Department cannot take a contrary position against the spirit of the Circulars. He further submits that the impugned order travels beyond the SCN and the same is not permissible as held in Ballarpur Industries Ltd dated 30.08.2007 in CA No. 1373/2002 (SC). He relies on the following cases ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime and generally to coordinate the supply of and demand for products provided by the Group between suppliers and customers and to advise the Group in respect of sourcing of products; • to furnish continuous information concerning product availability, market conditions, and, in particular, information concerning the Group's suppliers and advise on matters of pricing; • to arrange and obtain samples of products from suppliers and to assist the Group's suppliers with any problems relating to the exportation or application for license of goods; • to assist and advise on methods of transporting, storing and delivery of goods from the Group's suppliers and to provide advice regarding packaging systems and materials most suitable for goods; • to assist the Group in investigation and settling any claims and complaints against products or goods supplied; • to arrange for the packaging and shipping of the goods or products as shall be purchased by the Group and/or its customers and to act on and in accordance with the instructions of the Group in connection with such matters; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e GST regime vis-a-vis the service tax regime except addition of supply of securities in the definition of "intermediary" in the GST law. 9. The appellants further rely on the Circulars No. 186/5/2015 - ST dated 05.10.2015 and 159/15/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021, issued by CBIC. We find that this Bench in the case of M/s Oceanic Consultants Pvt Ltd, vide Final Order No.60469/2024 dated 06.08.2024. held as follows: 14. We find that Circular No.159/15/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021 issued by CBIC envisages that in respect of Intermediary Services, there should be a minimum of three parties and two distinct supplies i.e. main supply and ancillary supply; it also clarifies that a person involved in supply of main supply on principal-to-principal basis to another person cannot be considered as supplier of Intermediary Service. In the instant case, the appellants and M/s OCA are rendering the same service i.e. helping the students get admission in Australian universities and the appellants are rendering the same main service as M/s OCA; whereas M/s OCA get the remuneration from the universities on the fees paid by the students, the appellants get their remuneration. A doubt can....