The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of intermediary services and the scope of export of services under the relevant rules.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 impugning the final order^{1[Final Oder No.ST/A/51150/2022- in Service Tax Appeal No. 50281/2022 captioned Blackberry India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax/Excise],} dated 07.12.2022 (hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter `the CESTAT').

2. In terms of the impugned order, the learned CESTAT had allowed the respondent's appeal against an Order-in-Appeal dated 18.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the respondent's appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 31.08.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

3. By the said Order-in-Original dated 31.08.2020, the Adjudicating Authority had rejected the respondent's claim for refund of Rs.8,55,34,345/- on account of unutilised CENVAT Credit for three mentioned periods, that is, (i) April to June 2012; (ii) April to June 2013, and (iii) July 2013 to September 2013.

4. The respondent (hereafter `BlackBerry India') was registered with the Department for payment of service tax in respect of Business Auxiliary Services provided by it. BlackBerry India had filed claims for refund of unutilised CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.8,55,34,345/-. The said Credit was accumulated on account of various input services such as security services, manpower services, sponsorship services, legal consultancy services etc., which were utilized by BlackBerry India for providing output services - Business Auxiliary Services. BlackBerry India claimed that its output services were exported to its overseas client. A Tabular statement indicating the claims filed by the respondent is set out below:

"

"

5. The Adjudicating Authority issued a Show Cause Notice dated 22.01.2020 proposing to reject BlackBerry India's claim 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.

6. BlackBerry India responded to the said Show Cause Notice dated 22.01.2020 explaining that it had entered into an agreement with BlackBerry Singapore Pte Ltd. (hereafter `BlackBerry Singapore') for providing Marketing Administration and Support Services (hereafter `the Agreement'), which entailed promotion and marketing of BlackBerry Products; technical marketing assistance in relation to BlackBerry Marketing products, and other related services. BlackBerry India disputed that the services rendered to BlackBerry Singapore were services as an intermediary.

7. The Adjudicating Authority did not accept the said contention. The Adjudicating Authority found that the services rendered by BlackBerry India were Business Auxiliary Services as defined under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereafter `the Act') and the same were taxable services for the period prior to 01.07.2012.

8. The Adjudicating Authority referred to the Agreement entered into between BlackBerry India (then known as `Research in Motion India Private Limited') with BlackBerry Singapore (then known as `Research in Motion Singapore Pte') and held that in terms of the said Agreement, BlackBerry India had distributed products and services including BlackBerry solution, which included handheld devices, accessories, software, and other related services. Further, BlackBerry India had also performed various promotional and marketing services as set out in Schedule A to the Agreement. The Adjudicating Authority held that the aforesaid services would fall within the definition of intermediary services as defined in Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. According to the Adjudicating Authority, BlackBerry S