TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant filed this appeal against the rejection of refund claim of Rs. 65,006.00. The Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on merit and on limitation. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication order on merit and it has been held that the original refund claim was filed within time. 2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sting and Analysis Service in abroad. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the benefit of the said rules on the ground that if the services are partly performed in India and it would be governed by the proviso made under Section 67 of the said Act, otherwise, in both the cases, whether fully performed or partly performed, it shall be treated as performed in India. We find that the proviso to Rule 3(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sub-clause (zzh) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, as specified in Rule 3 above. The contention of the assessee is that the entire test was performed outside India. In these circumstances as per the first proviso to Rule 3(ii) for taxable service if it is partly performed in India, it is to be treated as performed in India. We find that there is no allegation in the show cause notice of evid....