https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771626 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal, ruling that the appellant could not be classified as an intermediary under Rule 9 of POPS Rules. The tribunal found the agreement was between two principals with no evidence indicating an agency relationship. The Revenue failed to produce tripartite agreements demonstrating the appellant acted as agent/broker. Following precedent from Airbnb Payments India case and Punjab & Haryana HC's criteria in Genpact India, the tribunal held the lower order incorrectly denied export benefits by wrongly categorizing the appellant as intermediary, making the service tax demand unsustainable. en-us Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 May 2025 08:27:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771626 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal, ruling that the appellant could not be classified as an intermediary under Rule 9 of POPS Rules. The tribunal found the agreement was between two principals with no evidence indicating an agency relationship. The Revenue failed to produce tripartite agreements demonstrating the appellant acted as agent/broker. Following precedent from Airbnb Payments India case and Punjab & Haryana HC's criteria in Genpact India, the tribunal held the lower order incorrectly denied export benefits by wrongly categorizing the appellant as intermediary, making the service tax demand unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771626