CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. 3 SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51005 OF 2021 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.DDN/EXCUS/000/APP/08/2021-22 dated

29.04.2021 passed by the Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Dehradun]

M/s. Lifelong India Private Limited …APPELLANT Plot No.7, Sector-1, Industrial Park-2, Phase I, Village Saleempur Mehdood, Bahardurbad, Haridwar-249402, Uttarakhand Vs.

Commissioner, Central Goods and …RESPONDENT Services Tax, Dehradun Appearance:

Present for the Appellant : Ms. Charanya Lakshmi Kumaran, Shri Dhruv Tiwari and Shri Shivam Batra, Advocates Present for the Respondent: Shri Mehboob Ur Rehman, Authorised Representative CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON'BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing :12.01.2026 Date of Decision: 06.02.2026 Final Order No.50257/2026 HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Lifelong India Private Limited¹ against the Order-in-Appeal No. DDN/EXCUS/000/ APP/08/2021-22 dated 29.04.2021 passed by the Commissioner, CGST

1. the Appellant (Appeals), Dehradun, which confirmed the demand of Rs.14,81,790/-

and imposed equivalent penalty.

2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of parts and accessories of motor vehicles which are sold in the domestic market as well as exported. In relation to the export of the goods, the appellant had engaged commission agents to act as the appellant non-exclusive sales representative in the territory of Northern America. The scope of work included market research, procuring RFQs from potential customers, making presentation, establishing price and other commercial negotiations for finalization of orders, and providing sales and after sales services to the customers on behalf of the appellant. However, the appellant was not satisfied with the services provided by the overseas commission agent. Hence the app and stop the services and stopped making payments of commission to the overseas commission agent and merely made provision for such amount as payable in its books of account during the relevant period. The overseas commission agent had raised two invoices dated 7.5.2012. An audit was conducted by the revenue department and several objections were raised, one of which related to non-payment of service tax on the commission paid to the overseas agent. Vide order in original dated 3.11.2017, the demand was confirmed along with penalty. The Commissioner Appeals vide an order dated 24.7.2019 remanded the matter to the lower authority. Thereafter, the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 05.10.2020 confirmed the demand of service tax on overseas commission agent was. Vide the impugned order in appeal dated 29.4.2021, the said demand along with interest and penalty was confirmed. Hence, this present appeal is before the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel submitted that demand of service tax is not sustainable as the services from overseas commission agents are consumed in the non-taxable territory. Learned counsel also submitted that under the positive list regime, the services received from overseas commission agents are classifiable under BAS as defined in Section 65(19) of the Act and which is taxable in terms of Section 65(105)(zzb) ibid. The liability to pay tax arises on the person providing BAS, however, if such services are provided by a person located in non-taxable territory to a person located in the taxable territory defined under Section 64(1) ibid, the liability to pay tax is on the person located in the taxable territory as provided in Section 66A ibid and Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (for short "ST Rules"). Therefore, for a service to be taxed under Section 66A of the Act, the service must qualify as an import of service, conditions for which are provided in Taxation of Services (Provided from outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006²

3.1 Learned counsel also submitted that in the present case, t