TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a case the service is partly performed in India. In the present case, there is no dispute that the service was provided outside of India and therefore, they are not covered under the said proviso. - Adjudicating authority directed to allow the refund to the Appellant in accordance with law. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/199/2008-DB - - - Dated:- 15-10-2015 - P. K. Das, Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chanism w.e.f. 19.04.2006 under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellant claimed that the tax is not payable under Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Taxation of Services (provided from outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006. The proviso to the said Rule states that where such taxable service is partly performed in India, it shall be treated as performed in India and the value of such taxab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t covered under the said proviso. This view is supported by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs Lear Automotive India (P) Ltd - 2014 (35) STR 614 (Tri-Mum) , wherein the Revenue's appeal was rejected. The findings of the Tribunal in the case of Lear Automotive India (P) Ltd (supra) are as under:- 12. We find that the taxable service provided from outside India and received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lysis. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the demand in respect of Technical testing and analysis is set aside. We therefore find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 3. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order on merit and the Adjudicating authority is directed to allow the refund to the Appellant in accordance with law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
