Order Date – 30 June 2022

Facts – 

• The Appellant, M/s Anglo Eastern Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in providing Ship Management service involving Crew Management to its foreign associated company based in Hong Kong.
• Appellant sought for refund of its accumulated CENVAT credit from October, 2016 to June, 2017 as per provision contained in Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 issued under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
• It was rejected by an adjudication order on the ground that services rendered by Appellant were providing intermediary services and place of provision of service (“POPS”) is in India as per Rule 9(c) of POPS Rules, 2002.
• Aggrieved the appealed filed an appeal.

Issue – 

• Whether the nature of service provided by the service provider is that of an intermediary as contained in Rule 2(f) of the POPS Rules, 2012?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that it’s erroneous to hold that AETM (Hong Kong) Ltd. had outsourced crew management service to the Appellant whereas in its actuality it picked up trained crew members from the Appellant, selected at its instance and recruited them in its own company for providing crew management service to ship owners.
• The Tribunal accepted the submissions of appellant and cited judgment of Eastern Pacific shipping India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East that had set the ratio on the issue that seafarer’s recruitment service provider, who processes the entire selection, medical test, insurance, transportation, training etc. to the overseas client and received convertible foreign exchange, is not an intermediary.   
• Therefore, it was held that the Appeal is entitled to get the refund of CENVAT credit claimed by it from the period from October, 2016 to June, 2017 amounting to Rs.12,01,918/- along with applicable interest.