https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259268 Foreign exchange realisation at Mumbai did not change the jurisdictional position because export of service was complete once the foreign exchange was received in India. The Mumbai and Coimbatore units were not treated as distinct for this purpose, and since the service was provided in Coimbatore and the taxable event arose there, the Coimbatore authority was the proper forum to entertain the refund claim. The Revenue's challenge to Coimbatore jurisdiction therefore failed. en-us Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 May 2016 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259268 Foreign exchange realisation at Mumbai did not change the jurisdictional position because export of service was complete once the foreign exchange was received in India. The Mumbai and Coimbatore units were not treated as distinct for this purpose, and since the service was provided in Coimbatore and the taxable event arose there, the Coimbatore authority was the proper forum to entertain the refund claim. The Revenue's challenge to Coimbatore jurisdiction therefore failed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259268