https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774271 CESTAT Bangalore ruled in favor of appellant providing marketing, promotional and after-sales services to parent entity located outside India. Tribunal held that appellant was not an intermediary under Rule 2(f) of Place Provision of Services Rules, 2012, and services qualified as export under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Following established precedents including Vodafone Idea Ltd and Arcelor Mittal Stainless cases, CESTAT determined that services rendered to foreign parent entity constituted export of services, not intermediary services. Appellant was entitled to refund of cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Appeal allowed. en-us Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:42:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774271 CESTAT Bangalore ruled in favor of appellant providing marketing, promotional and after-sales services to parent entity located outside India. Tribunal held that appellant was not an intermediary under Rule 2(f) of Place Provision of Services Rules, 2012, and services qualified as export under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Following established precedents including Vodafone Idea Ltd and Arcelor Mittal Stainless cases, CESTAT determined that services rendered to foreign parent entity constituted export of services, not intermediary services. Appellant was entitled to refund of cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774271