9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Private Limited vs. CCE ST, Chandigarh holding that the services provided by the Appellant amount to Export of Services and not Intermediary Services . The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority; accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. - HON BLE Sh. S. S. GARG , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE Sh. P. ANJANI KUMAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Sh. Vikrant Kackria , Advocate for the Appellant Sh. Harish Kapoor , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER : S. S. GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods Service Tax, Ludhiana, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the same after final outcome of the departmental appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 005307/2015 pending with the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Mircosoft Corporation Pvt Ltd. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant are registered with the Service Tax department and are engaged in providing services to the overseas educational institution from wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable in law and is liable to set aside as the same has been passed without appreciating the facts and the law; and binding judicial precedents on the identical issue. 4.2 He further submits that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly dropped the demand of service tax by holding that the services provided by the Appellant do not fall in the category of Intermediary Service as alleged by the department. He further submits that the Adjudicating Authority has relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case M/s Sunrise Immigration Consultants Private Limited vs. CCE ST, Chandigarh in Appeal No. ST/52205/2015 decided vide Final Order No. 62221/2018 dated 16.03.2018 and M/s Study Overseas Global (P) Ltd vs. CST, Delhi - 2017 (3) GSTL 443 (Tri. Delhi). He further submits that the issue involved in the present case is the same which was involved in the case of M/s Sunrise Immigration Consultants Private Limited (cited supra) and the Tribunal after considering the agreements between the parties and the definition of Intermediary Service has categorically held that the services rendered by the Appellant/Assessee do not fall in the definition of Intermediary Service rather the services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) though admits on merit that the case of the Appellant is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sunrise Immigration Consultants Private Limited (cited supra), but still remanded back the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to await the outcome of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Mircosoft Corporation (I) Pvt Ltd. Once the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has himself given the findings that issue is in favour of the Appellant and the same is not challenged by the department, then there is no justification for remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to await the outcome of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Mircosoft Corporation (I) Pvt Ltd. 8. We also find that since the issue involved in the present case has already been decided in favour of the Appellant by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sunrise Immigration Consultants Private Limited vs. CCE ST, Chandigarh in Appeal No. ST/52205/2015 decided vide Final Order No. 62221/2018 dated 16.03.2018 holding that the services provided by the Appellant amount to Export of Services and not Intermediary Services . The said decision of the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances, the appellant cannot be called as intermediary in the light of the judgment issued by the Advanced Ruling Authority in the case of Universal Services India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2016 (42) STR 585 (AAR) and Godaddy India Web Services Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2016 (46) STR 806 (AAR) wherein it has been observed as under : 10. The definition of intermediary as envisaged under Rule 2(f) of POS does not include a person who provides the main service on his own account. In the present case, applicant is providing main service, i.e. business Support Service to WWD US and on his account. Therefore, applicant is not an intermediary and the service provided by him is not intermediary service. Further, during arguments, applicant drew our attention to one of the illustration given under paragraph 5.9.6 of the Education Guide, 2012 issued by C.B.E. C. Relevant is extracted as under; Similarly, persons such as call canters, who provide services to their clients by dealing with the customers of the client on the client s behalf, but actually provided these services on their own account , will not be categorized as intermediaries. Applicant relying on above paragraph submitted that call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the identical issue involved in the present case and after considering the definition of Intermediary Services as provided under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 has held that the services provided by the Appellant/Assessee to foreign universities qualify as Export of Services and cannot be treated as Intermediary Services as held in the following cases: M/s Medway Educational Consultant P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi West - 2024 (3) TMI 1178 CESTAT New Delhi M/s Krishna Consultancy vs. Commissioner of CGST, Nagpur 2023 (10) TMI 503 CESTAT Mumbai M/s Study Overseas Global (P) Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi 2017 (5) TMI 887 CESTAT New Delhi M/s Valmiki Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Tax, Hyderabad 2018 (11) TMI 1085 CESTAT Hyderabad 10. Since, the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra as held in the cases cited supra, therefore, we are of the view that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority; accordingly, we set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law. ( Operative part of the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
