https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295350 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the denial of cash refund of accumulated Cenvat credit for services provided by the appellants to their parent company in Japan. It held that the services did not qualify as 'export service' or fall under the scope of 'intermediary' as per the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. The Tribunal emphasized the inconsistency in Departmental decisions and clarified the applicability of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, directing the Revenue to initiate proceedings if the services were not considered as export of services. en-us Thu, 05 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 May 2021 08:34:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295350 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the denial of cash refund of accumulated Cenvat credit for services provided by the appellants to their parent company in Japan. It held that the services did not qualify as 'export service' or fall under the scope of 'intermediary' as per the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. The Tribunal emphasized the inconsistency in Departmental decisions and clarified the applicability of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, directing the Revenue to initiate proceedings if the services were not considered as export of services. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 05 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295350