TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 97
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals are given herein below in tabular form: S. No. Appeal No. Period Refund (Rs.) 1. ST/60314/2021 July 2013 to December 2013 6,12,28,245/- 2. ST/60315/2021 January 2017 to March 2017 5,01,76,018/- 3. ST/60316/2021 April 2017 to June 2017 3,41,32,773/- Total 14,55,37,036/- 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant M/s Genpact Services LLC is an India Branch established as a private company with unlimited liability incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Appellant was engaged in providing back-office support services such as call centre services, back-office management, IT helpdesk services ("BPO Services") to the customers of M/s Genpact International Inc. (in short 'GI'), an entity located outside India. The Appellant provided said services to third parties (clients of GI) located outside India on behalf of its client, i.e. GI, located outside India, through online, on-call or through e-mail. For the purpose of providing the services, the Appellant had entered into a Master Services Sub-Contracting Agreement dated 01.01.2013 (in short 'MSA') with GI, a corporation organized under the laws of Delawa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmits that it is also admitted in the same para that the Appellant did not have any Agreement with the overseas customers of GI; therefore, the services provided by the Appellant to GI are on principal-to-principal basis. He further submits that admittedly the Appellant does not have any contract with the customers of GI; therefore, the Appellant did not provide any services to the customers of GI and provided the same to GI only. 4.2 The learned Counsel further submits that in the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), it has been incorrectly averred that the Appellant was required to arrange or facilitate certain BPO and IT services to overseas customers of GI. He also submits that the Appellant was not required to arrange or facilitate, but was required to provide services on behalf of GI to its customers; this is also admitted in conclusion of para 9 of the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 31.03 2021; the services provided by the Appellant were not arranged or facilitated through some other service provider but were provided by the Appellant on its own account to GI. He further submits that the entire edifice of Revenue's appeal before the Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the said Show Cause Notice by specifically recording that the Revenue has taken conscious decision not to file the SLP against the previous judgement dated 11.11.2022 in CWP No. 6048 of 2021. 4.6 He further submits that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in its judgment dated 11.11.2022 has reproduced certain clauses of the Agreement dated 01.01.2013 between Genpact India Pvt Ltd and GI and these clauses are identical in the present case also. He further submits that various clauses of the Agreement examined by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the abovesaid case and the clauses of the Agreement in the present appeal, are identically worded. Further, he also submits that as per the Revenue's own Circular, law under the Service Tax regime and the GST regime, as far as Intermediary is concerned, is similar. 4.7 He further submits that the Revenue has started giving refund to the Genpact India Pvt Ltd after the judgement dated 09.08.2023 of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held Genpact India Pvt Ltd is not 'Intermediary', even under the Serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing remunerated by its customers. 8. Further, we find that the Original Authority/Refund Sanctioning Authority, after considering the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules and the Notification No. 27/2012-CENT dated 18.06.2012, had allowed the refund, which was reviewed and challenged by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal, has held the Appellant is an 'Intermediary' under Rule 2(f) and has also denied export benefit and consequently, denied the refund claimed by the Appellant. 9. Further, we find that this issue, i.e. whether the Appellant is an 'intermediary' under Rule 2(f) read with Rule 9(c) of the POPS Rules, has been considered by the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the cases of Appellant's group company viz. M/s Genpact India Pvt Ltd, which had entered into identically worded Agreement with GI; and after considering the various clauses of the said Agreement, the Hon'ble High Court vide its judgment dated 11.11.2022 (in CWP No. 6048/2021) came to the conclusion that Genpact India Pvt Ltd is not an 'intermediary'. It is further noted that the Revenue did not file SLP agains....