https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415715 The tribunal determined that the services provided by the appellant did not qualify as "Intermediary Services" under Rule 9 of the Place of Provision Rules, 2012. The tribunal set aside the initial rejection of refund claims, emphasizing that the refund claims should be assessed by the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner without reclassifying the nature of the services. The decision clarified that while the appellant's services were not considered intermediary, the refund claims themselves require separate examination by the jurisdictional authority. en-us Thu, 07 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:35:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415715 The tribunal determined that the services provided by the appellant did not qualify as "Intermediary Services" under Rule 9 of the Place of Provision Rules, 2012. The tribunal set aside the initial rejection of refund claims, emphasizing that the refund claims should be assessed by the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner without reclassifying the nature of the services. The decision clarified that while the appellant's services were not considered intermediary, the refund claims themselves require separate examination by the jurisdictional authority. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 07 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415715