2023 (12) TMI 378 - AT - Service Tax

Refund under Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 - export of output service without payment of service tax - Intermediary service - place of provision of service - HELD THAT - It is also noted that the activity carried out by the appellant in respect of the German company remained the same for the period for which the present claims are filed and also for the period subsequent to the period for the present claims are filed and for the periods earlier to the present claims and subsequent to the present claims. As submitted by the appellant, refund of unutilized cenvat credit was allowed to the appellant. It is a fact that Revenue has not raised any service tax demand on the appellant for the period of the present appeal and also it is a fact that in respect of the claims in the present appeal, appellant has submitted FIRCs and Bank statement. It can be reasonably concluded that the activity is export of service. Since the FIRCs and individual invoices were not scrutinized by the original authority, the matter needs to be remanded to the original authority. The impugned order set aside - matter remanded to the original authority with a direction not to raise the issue of export of service and process the said five claims in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the eligibility of the appellant for a refund claim under Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012, the classification of the appellant's services as intermediary services, and the determination of the place of provision of service under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994.

Eligibility for Refund Claim:
The appellant filed five claims for refund under Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) on the grounds of exporting output service without payment of service tax from January 2016 to March 2017. The original authority rejected the claims, stating that the appellant was providing intermediary services, which do not qualify as exports under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading the appellant to appeal to the Tribunal.

Classification of Services:
The appellant argued that they provide services to a German reinsurance company, aiding in enhancing its business by offering insights into the Indian reinsurance market and related environments. They contended that they do not have the authority to provide reinsurance services directly and do not act as an intermediary binding the reinsurer. The appellant claimed that their services do not fall under the category of intermediary services or services provided within India. They highlighted that they receive consideration in convertible foreign exchange and had previously received refunds for similar activities.

Place of Provision of Service:
The Tribunal observed that the appellant's activities for the period in question remained consistent with those in previous and subsequent periods, where refunds were allowed. Noting that the Revenue did not raise any service tax demand against the appellant for the period in question, and considering the submission of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs) and bank statements, the Tribunal concluded that the activity constituted an export of service. As the original authority did not scrutinize the FIRCs and individual invoices, the matter was remanded to the original authority to process the refund claims in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the impugned order and directing the original authority to process the five refund claims without raising the issue of export of service. The eligible amount was to be refunded to the appellant.