CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 60064 of 2018 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 110-111/ST/2017 dated 29.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Gurugram]

M/s Li and Fung India Pvt. Ltd. ……Appellant Tower B SP Infocity 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I Gurgaon, Haryana-122016 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Goods and ……Respondent Service Tax, Gurgaon-I Plot No.36-37, Sector-32, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 WITH Service Tax Appeal No. 60074 of 2018 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 110-111/ST/2017 dated 29.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Gurugram]

M/s Li and Fung India Pvt. Ltd. ……Appellant Tower B SP Infocity 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I Gurgaon, Haryana-122016 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Goods and ……Respondent Service Tax, Gurgaon-I Plot No.36-37, Sector-32, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 Service Tax Appeal No. 60020 of 2019 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.152/ST/CGST-APPEAL-GURUGRAM-SG/2018 dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Gurugram]

M/s Li and Fung India Pvt. Ltd. ……Appellant Tower B SP Infocity 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I Gurgaon, Haryana-122016 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Goods and ……Respondent Service Tax, Gurgaon-I Plot No.36-37, Sector-32, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 APPEARANCE:

Shri Tarun Gulati and Shri Kumar Sambhav, Advocates for the Appellant Shri C. Dhansekarana (Special Counsel), Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO.60106-60108/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 12.11.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 23.01.2026 P. ANJANI KUMAR:

M/s Li and Fung India Pvt. Ltd., the appellants, challenge the impugned Orders-in-Appeal, two orders dated 29.09.2017 & one order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Gurugram, vide these three appeals i.e. ST/60064/2018, ST/60074/2018 & ST/60020/2019.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the provision of Business Support Services to Li and Fung (Trading) Ltd. Hongkong (overseas entity); the overseas entity and the appellant are associated enterprises; the overseas entity has entered into agreements with various companies located overseas to assist them in sourcing the products from various countries; the overseas entity was entered into an agreement, dated 13.02.2007, called ‘Agreement for Services’; in terms of the agreement, the appellant was required to provide a host of services, including market and product research, support services, consultation, information and other advisory services in relation to overall operations of the overseas entity in India; the appellant charges the overseas entity on a cost plus markup of 8% basis. The services provided by the appellant are covered under Export of Service as per Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994; however, due to a mistaken belief, the appellants discharged the service tax for the period October 2014 to September 2015.

2.1 On realizing their mistake, the appellants filed two refund claims, for Rs.4,75,53,937/- and Rs.11,84,19,892/- on 04.02.2016, which were rejected vide OIO dated 27.03.2017; an appeal filed by the appellants came to be rejected vide impugned OIA dated 29.09.2017. The same is under challenge vide Appeal No. ST/60064/2018. For the period after October 2015, the appellant has considered the services as Export of Services and claimed refund, of Rs.2,14,76,758/- under Rule 5 of CCR for the period October 2015 to March 2016 which came to be rejected by the OIO dated 31.03.2017 and such rejection was upheld vide OIA dated 29.09.2017; this order is impugned in Appeal No. ST/60074/2018. For the period October 2016 to March 2017, the appellants filed refund claim of Rs.2,16,39,676; the claim was rejected vide OIO dated 26.03.2018 and such rejection was upheld vide impugned OIA dated 28.09.2018, this order is impugned in Appeal No. ST/60020/2018. Hence,