Case Details: Coperion Ideal Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (J) & Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (T)
- Shri Atul Gupta, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Smt. Chitra Srivastava, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee advised foreign entities on bidding and negotiations, providing customer details and market insights in India. It had agreements with two German companies and raised invoices upon confirmation of payment from Indian customers. The Department classified the assessee as an “intermediary” and demanded service tax under Business Auxiliary Service. It argued that the assessee facilitated transactions between foreign entities and Indian customers. Disputing this classification, the assessee appealed to the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The Hon’ble CESTAT ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that its role was limited to providing information and bridging communication between foreign entities and Indian customers, without direct involvement in concluding transactions. Since intermediary services related to goods were excluded from taxation under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 (prior to the 2014 amendment), the assessee’s services did not attract service tax. Further, as the recipient was located outside India and payment was received in foreign exchange, the services qualified as exports under Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Consequently, the service tax demand was set aside.
List of Cases Cited
- Chevron Phillips Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2021 (53) G.S.T.L. 268 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Para 13]
- Coperion Ideal Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 523 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 2, 6]
