https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357067 The Tribunal classified the appellants' services under "Management or Business Consultant Service" (MBCS) instead of "Real Estate Advisory Service" (REAS). The services provided by the appellants were considered advisory in nature, focusing on investment opportunities rather than real estate transactions. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the appellants regarding their entitlement to refunds under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as the services met the criteria for export of services under the Export of Services Rules, 2005. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. en-us Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Mar 2018 07:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357067 The Tribunal classified the appellants' services under "Management or Business Consultant Service" (MBCS) instead of "Real Estate Advisory Service" (REAS). The services provided by the appellants were considered advisory in nature, focusing on investment opportunities rather than real estate transactions. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the appellants regarding their entitlement to refunds under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as the services met the criteria for export of services under the Export of Services Rules, 2005. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357067