Terminal gate verification for transshipment containers shifts to operators, while Customs controls and discrepancy reporting requirements remain mand...
CESTAT ruled against Revenue's contention that services constituted intermediary services u/r 9 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. The Tribunal emphasized that intermediary services require a tripartite arrangement involving a supplier, recipient, and facilitator. In this case, only a bipartite agreement existed between Respondent and overseas clients for identifying prospective buyers. The services were provided directly on Respondent's own account, not facilitating supply between parties. Following precedents from IDEX India and Cube Highways cases, which established that advisory services rendered independently do not qualify as intermediary services, CESTAT dismissed Revenue's appeal, confirming the services qualified as export of services.
CESTAT ruled against Revenue's contention that services constituted intermediary services u/r 9 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. The Tribunal emphasized that intermediary services require a tripartite arrangement involving a supplier, recipient, and facilitator. In this case, only a bipartite agreement existed between Respondent and overseas clients for identifying prospective buyers. The services were provided directly on Respondent's own account, not facilitating supply between parties. Following precedents from IDEX India and Cube Highways cases, which established that advisory services rendered independently do not qualify as intermediary services, CESTAT dismissed Revenue's appeal, confirming the services qualified as export of services.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
