https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765141 CESTAT Allahabad dismissed Revenue's appeal regarding classification of services as intermediary services. The tribunal held that appellant could not be termed intermediary as arrangement involved only bipartite agreement between respondent and overseas clients for identification and introduction of prospective buyers, lacking required tripartite agreement. Citing precedents including IDEX India and Cube Highways cases, CESTAT ruled that services provided on own account without facilitating supply between two parties do not constitute intermediary services. Export of service benefit was upheld for respondent. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jan 2025 08:40:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765141 CESTAT Allahabad dismissed Revenue's appeal regarding classification of services as intermediary services. The tribunal held that appellant could not be termed intermediary as arrangement involved only bipartite agreement between respondent and overseas clients for identification and introduction of prospective buyers, lacking required tripartite agreement. Citing precedents including IDEX India and Cube Highways cases, CESTAT ruled that services provided on own account without facilitating supply between two parties do not constitute intermediary services. Export of service benefit was upheld for respondent. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765141