https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431543 The dominant issue was whether the appellant's promotion and marketing activities for an overseas recipient constituted "intermediary service" under rule 9(c) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, thereby fixing the place of provision in India and disentitling export benefits. The Tribunal held that the agreement showed the appellant provided specified marketing/promotion services on its own account, created no principal-agent relationship, and did not arrange or facilitate the main supply between the overseas recipient and third parties; hence it was not an intermediary and rule 3 applied, making the place of provision the recipient's location outside India. Consequently, the services qualified as export, and refund of unutilised Cenvat credit under rule 5 could not be denied; the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 07 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 14:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431543 The dominant issue was whether the appellant's promotion and marketing activities for an overseas recipient constituted "intermediary service" under rule 9(c) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, thereby fixing the place of provision in India and disentitling export benefits. The Tribunal held that the agreement showed the appellant provided specified marketing/promotion services on its own account, created no principal-agent relationship, and did not arrange or facilitate the main supply between the overseas recipient and third parties; hence it was not an intermediary and rule 3 applied, making the place of provision the recipient's location outside India. Consequently, the services qualified as export, and refund of unutilised Cenvat credit under rule 5 could not be denied; the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 07 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431543