https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434622 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, confirming that the respondent was not considered an intermediary under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. The respondent was found eligible for a refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for providing services directly to a foreign entity. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, affirming the respondent's entitlement to the refund. en-us Thu, 02 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Feb 2023 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434622 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, confirming that the respondent was not considered an intermediary under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. The respondent was found eligible for a refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for providing services directly to a foreign entity. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, affirming the respondent's entitlement to the refund. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 02 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434622