https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763098 CESTAT Chandigarh held that appellant did not render intermediary services for ITSS or BSS services provided to foreign principal, as service agreements clearly indicated direct service provision rather than intermediary role for third parties. The authority found appellate commissioner's findings exceeded scope of show cause notice, which merely assumed intermediary nature without examining agreement clauses. Regarding FIRC certificates, while appellant failed to submit some certificates, the matter was remanded to original authority to calculate eligible refund amount based on actual remittances received during respective quarters. Appeals disposed with appellant eligible for service export refund classification. en-us Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Dec 2024 20:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763098 CESTAT Chandigarh held that appellant did not render intermediary services for ITSS or BSS services provided to foreign principal, as service agreements clearly indicated direct service provision rather than intermediary role for third parties. The authority found appellate commissioner's findings exceeded scope of show cause notice, which merely assumed intermediary nature without examining agreement clauses. Regarding FIRC certificates, while appellant failed to submit some certificates, the matter was remanded to original authority to calculate eligible refund amount based on actual remittances received during respective quarters. Appeals disposed with appellant eligible for service export refund classification. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763098