https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756037 Refund or rebate claims under Notification No. 27/2012-CE were treated as timely where they were filed within the prescribed period and supported by FIRCs and bank statements, even though BRC certificates were not enclosed initially; the absence of those certificates, caused by delay in their availability on the DGFT website, did not by itself make the claims time-barred. On the merits, the question whether the appellant's services were merely intermediary services was not finally decided because the first appellate authority recorded no independent finding and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication after hearing the parties. en-us Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jul 2024 16:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756037 Refund or rebate claims under Notification No. 27/2012-CE were treated as timely where they were filed within the prescribed period and supported by FIRCs and bank statements, even though BRC certificates were not enclosed initially; the absence of those certificates, caused by delay in their availability on the DGFT website, did not by itself make the claims time-barred. On the merits, the question whether the appellant's services were merely intermediary services was not finally decided because the first appellate authority recorded no independent finding and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication after hearing the parties. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756037