Service Tax
TRT-2025-
New Delhi High Court
Date:-12-07-23
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date – 12 July 2023
Parties: Pr. Commissioner Central Excise and CGST – Delhi South Vs Blackberry India Private Limited
Facts –
- The Respondent, Blackberry India Private Limited, had filed claims for refund of unutilised CENVAT Credit accumulated on account of various input services such as security services, manpower services, sponsorship services, legal consultancy services etc., which were utilized for providing output services – Business Auxiliary Services. The output services were exported to its overseas client.
- Initially the refund request was rejected on the ground that the place of provisions of service appeared to be in India as the services rendered by BlackBerry India were as an intermediary.
- Later the learned CESTAT held that BlackBerry India was not an intermediary within the meaning of Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. Being aggrieved the department filed an appeal.
Issue –
- Whether the respondent is eligible for refund of unutilised CENVAT Credit?
Order –
- The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the services rendered by BlackBerry India to BlackBerry Singapore under the Agreement, were not in the nature of facilitating services from another supplier. BlackBerry India, as an independent service provider, was required to render the promotional and marketing services; technical marketing assistance; and other related services. BlackBerry India did not arrange or facilitate these services from another supplier.
- Further it is clear from the Circular dated 20.09.2021 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs that BlackBerry India cannot be considered as an intermediary in the context of the services rendered by it under the Agreement.
- The learned CESTAT has rightly concluded that all services except those specifically mentioned in Rule 3(1) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 are covered within the scope of Export of Taxable Services. The Adjudicating Authority had clearly misread the said Rule.
- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
Download Case Law
