https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785533 Refund claims for accumulated Cenvat credit concerned classification of services as OIDAR versus information technology software service; the department rejected refunds on the basis that registration under OIDAR and Rule 9 of the POPS Rules locates place of provision at the service provider, negating export. The lower authorities did not analyse the agreement between provider and client to determine the true classification. The tribunal set aside the impugned appellate orders and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to re-examine classification and refund claims in light of an earlier Assistant Commissioner order, directing fresh orders within four months. en-us Fri, 23 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Jan 2026 07:36:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785533 Refund claims for accumulated Cenvat credit concerned classification of services as OIDAR versus information technology software service; the department rejected refunds on the basis that registration under OIDAR and Rule 9 of the POPS Rules locates place of provision at the service provider, negating export. The lower authorities did not analyse the agreement between provider and client to determine the true classification. The tribunal set aside the impugned appellate orders and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to re-examine classification and refund claims in light of an earlier Assistant Commissioner order, directing fresh orders within four months. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 23 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785533