https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357727 The Tribunal found that the appellant was not considered an intermediary under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. Therefore, they were not liable to pay service tax under Rule 9. As a result, the appellant's refund claim was deemed admissible. The previous decision rejecting the refund claim was overturned, and the appellant's appeal was successful, granting them consequential relief. en-us Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2019 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357727 The Tribunal found that the appellant was not considered an intermediary under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. Therefore, they were not liable to pay service tax under Rule 9. As a result, the appellant's refund claim was deemed admissible. The previous decision rejecting the refund claim was overturned, and the appellant's appeal was successful, granting them consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357727