https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445415 CESTAT Mumbai held that the appellate authority exceeded the scope of the show-cause notice by applying Rule 4 instead of Rule 9(c) of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 for rejecting refund claim. The SCN proposed denial under Rule 9(c) treating appellant as intermediary, but Commissioner (Appeals) rejected refund on entirely different grounds under Rule 4. CESTAT ruled that show-cause notice is the foundation of departmental case and new grounds cannot be raised at appellate stage, citing SC precedents. Appeal was allowed as impugned order went beyond SCN scope. en-us Mon, 09 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Nov 2023 09:04:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445415 CESTAT Mumbai held that the appellate authority exceeded the scope of the show-cause notice by applying Rule 4 instead of Rule 9(c) of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 for rejecting refund claim. The SCN proposed denial under Rule 9(c) treating appellant as intermediary, but Commissioner (Appeals) rejected refund on entirely different grounds under Rule 4. CESTAT ruled that show-cause notice is the foundation of departmental case and new grounds cannot be raised at appellate stage, citing SC precedents. Appeal was allowed as impugned order went beyond SCN scope. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 09 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445415