Order date – 07 December 2022

Facts –

• The Respondent, M/s Singtel Global India Private Limited, claimed refund under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 20043 read with the Place of Provision of Service Rules 2012 of the unutilized input service credit of input services used by SGIPL to export telecommunication services to Singapore Telecommunications Ltd. (located in Singapore).
• The refund was allowed on the ground that the appellant was not an intermediary since it provided services to SingTel on its own account.
• Being aggrieved the revenue filed an appeal

Issue –

• Whether the appellant is intermediary or not?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that the agreement executed between SGIPL and SingTel leaves no manner of doubt that SGIPL is not an intermediary. There is no contract between SingTel and the operators in India like Airtel. SGIPL may have used the services of telecom operators in India but this would not mean that these telecom operators are providing services to SingTel.
• An intermediary is a person who arranges or facilitates provision of the main service between two or more persons. SGIPL is not involved in the arrangement or facilitation of the supply of service. In fact, it has entered into two Agreements; one with SingTel and the other with the Indian telecommunication service providers. The two Agreements are distinct and independent from each other. SGIPL provides the main service i.e. telecommunication service to SingTel on its own account.
• The telecommunication service provided by SGIPL qualify for export since it is providing telecommunication services to SingTel which is outside India and is receiving convertible foreign exchange for such services. SGIPL is not a privy to the Agreement entered into between SingTel and its end customers. Merely because SGIPL is charging handling fee on SingTel would not mean it is an intermediary.
• The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. versus Asstt. Commr., S.T. Delhi-III which squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly appreciated the position in the impugned orders in holding that SGIPL was not intermediary and had provided export of service to SingTel.
• Thus, for all the reasons stated above, all the three Service Tax Appeals are dismissed.