TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmission on the basis of agreements with the overseas colleges/universities. The Department entertained the view that the appellants are providing intermediary services in terms of Rule 2(f) of place of provision of service Rules, 2012 and thus liable to pay service tax. On these allegations, a show cause notice 02.06.2017 was issued to the appellant by the Additional commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax Commissionerate, Chandigarh-I alleging that the appellant has provided "intermediary services" to the foreign educational institutions which is classifiable as intermediary service as defied under clause (f) of Rule 2 of place of provision of Services Rules, 2012 read with Rule 9 as the place of provision of service being location of appellant (the service provider in this case). The appellant filed reply controverted the allegations in the show cause notice and after following the due process, the Joint Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Chandigarh vide its order dated 06.04.2018 confirmed the demand of Service Tax alongwith interest & penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Service Tax, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 05.10.2018 in the matter of Appeal No. ST/30061/2018 passed by the Hon'ble CESTAT, Hyderabad). 4.1 He further submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not take cognizance of the decisions passed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sunrise Immigration Consultants Private Limited (cited supra), wherein, the identical issue was involved and the CESTAT, Chandigarh, New Delhi, Mumbai & Hyderabad held that the services provided by the assesse does not fall under the category of intermediary services. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the demand of service tax raised for the period 2012-2013 tο 30.09.2014 is not sustainable as the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 was amended vide Notification No. 14/2014-ST dated 11.07.2014 effective dated 01.10.2014 wherein, clause (f) was substituted under Rule 2 and the same is reproduced herein below: "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) or a supply of goods, between two or more persons, but does not include a per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dhar Vs. Royal Enterprises [2016 (337) E.L.T. 482 (S.C.)] * Nestle India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2009 (235) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.)] * Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Chandigarh-I [2007 (216) E.L.T. (S.C.)] 4.5 As regards the interest and penalty, the learned counsel submits that when the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of interest and penalty does not arise. 5. On the other hand, learned authorized representative for the Department reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record, we find that the only issue to be decided is whether the services rendered by the appellant to foreign universities and getting the commission from the foreign universities is liable to pay service tax under intermediary service for it amount to export of service. This vary issue has been considered by various Benches of the Tribunal and it has been consistently held by the Tribunal in the various judgments relied upon by the appellant (cited supra), wherein it has been held that the services provided by the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Tribunal was appealed by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court but later on the appeal was withdrawn on monetary limit under CBIC instructions dated 22.08.2019. Here, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant findings of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sunrise Immigration Consultants Private Limited (cited supra), which are reproduced herein below: "7. The appellant is only disputed their liability on referral service post 01.07.2012 and submits that the appellant is not intermediary, therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax post 01.07.2012. 8. In these set of facts, following issues emerges: (A) Whether the appellant is intermediary in terms of Rule 2(f) of POPS Rules, 2012 or not? (B) Whether the referral service in question rendered by the appellant amount to export of service or not? (C) Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable or not? 9. For better appreciation, the definition of intermediary has been defined under Rule 2(f) of POPS Rules, 2012 which is reproduced here as under: "Intermediary means a broker, an agent or any other person, by whatever name called, who arranges or fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own account', will not be categorized as intermediaries. Applicant relying on above paragraph submitted that call centres, by dealing with customers of their clients, on client's behalf, are providing service to their client on their own account. Similarly, applicant is providing business support service such as marketing and other allied services like oversight of quality of third party customer care centre operated in India and payment processing services, on behalf of GoDaddy US. Therefore, these services provided by the applicant to GoDaddy US cannot be categorized as intermediary or services, as intermediary service." 12. We further take note of the fact that the provisions of Rule 6A of the POPS Rules, 2012 has been declared ultra virus by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Association of Tour Operators (Supra). In that circumstance, also the appellant is not liable to pay services for referral service, therefore, the issue no. 1 is answered in favour of the appellant. Issue No. B: Whether the referral services in question rendered by the appellant amount to export of service or not? 13. As discussed hereinabove in the proceedings paragr....