https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754103 CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the appeal where appellant challenged refund claim rejection based on service classification. Appellant argued service provider offered construction services, not renting of immovable property, seeking different tax treatment. Tribunal held appellant cannot question service provider's classification since provider treated service as property rental, collected 12.36% service tax, and filed returns accordingly without claiming error. As service recipient, appellant was precluded from challenging provider's classification for refund purposes. Lower authorities correctly rejected claim due to insufficient evidence, and remand request was denied. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754103 CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the appeal where appellant challenged refund claim rejection based on service classification. Appellant argued service provider offered construction services, not renting of immovable property, seeking different tax treatment. Tribunal held appellant cannot question service provider's classification since provider treated service as property rental, collected 12.36% service tax, and filed returns accordingly without claiming error. As service recipient, appellant was precluded from challenging provider's classification for refund purposes. Lower authorities correctly rejected claim due to insufficient evidence, and remand request was denied. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754103