CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 60581 of 2019 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 254/ST/CGST-APPEAL-GURUGRAM/SG/2018 dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurgaon]

M/s Teg India Pvt. Ltd. ……Appellant

12^th Floor, Tower B, Skootr Spaces Unit No. 1, Building No. 9, DLF Cyber City, Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana-

122002 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Goods and ……Respondent Service Tax, Gurgaon Plot No. 36 & 37, Sector-32, Near Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 WITH Service Tax Appeal No. 60304 of 2020 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 254/ST/CGST-APPEAL-GURUGRAM/SG/2018 dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurgaon]

M/s Teg India Pvt. Ltd. ……Appellant

12^th Floor, Tower B, Skootr Spaces Unit No. 1, Building No. 9, DLF Cyber City, Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana-

122002 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Goods and ……Respondent Service Tax, Gurgaon Plot No. 36 & 37, Sector-32, Near Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 APPEARANCE:

Shri Deepak Thakur, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anurag Kumar and Shri G.D. Bansal, Authorized Representatives for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60010-60011/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 06.11.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 12.01.2026 P. ANJANI KUMAR:

M/s Teg India Pvt. Ltd., the appellants, are engaged in provision of Support Services to M/s Teg U.K. under an agreement dated 01.04.2011; the Support Services included Operational Support Services in relation to advertising sales by M/s Teg U.K, Customer Liaison Services, Marketing and Promoting Services, Administrative Services, Collection of Payments, Invoicing etc; M/s Teg U.K. were paying cost plus 15% markup for the services provided by M/s Teg India; the appellants filed different refund claims under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No.27/2012, during the period under dispute i.e. October 2013 to March 2016, which came to be sanctioned by the Revenue vide two Orders dated 19.12.2016 and one Order dated 31.03.2017; the orders were not appealed against by the Revenue; subsequently, two show cause notices dated 28.03.2017, covering the period 01.07.2012 to 30.03.2016 and SCN dated 18.03.2019 covering the period 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017 were issued, invoking extended period, raising the demand that the services rendered by the appellants were in the nature of Intermediary Services and therefore, they cannot be considered as ‘export’; the demands were confirmed vide impugned order dated 20.04.2020. Hence, this appeal.

2. Shri Deepak Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that Revenue has not challenged the orders sanctioned refund but issued show cause notices; the action on the part of the Revenue amounts to taking inconsistent stand where there was no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and position of law. He relies on the following cases:

 Genpact India (P) Ltd. – 2023 (68) GSTL 3 (P & H)  Airbnb India Pvt. Ltd. – ST/60171/2020 [ Final Order No.60352/2025 dated 04.03.2025, Tri.-

Chandigarh]

 Birla Corporation Ltd. – 2005 (7) TMI 104  Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. – 2024 (3) TMI

631- Allahabad High Court

3. Learned Counsel further submits that during the disputed period, the appellants have rendered broadly two types of services i.e. Marketing & Promotional Services and Business Support Services; the impugned order records that the appellants have rendered a bundle of services. In terms of CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021 dated 20.09.2021, Intermediary Services should satisfy three requirements i.e., existence of a minimum of three parties, two distinct supplies and the intermediary service provider should have the character of an agent, broker or any other similar person. In the instant case, this criterion is not satisfied and the agreement is on a principal-to- principal b