JUDGMENT : (P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.) This appeal by the Revenue, directed against the order dated April 01, 2022 in final order No. 20145 to 20155/2022 passed by CESTAT Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore has been filed to consider following questions of law: i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the activity undertaken by the Respondent can be considered as 'export of service' under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 is applicable to the activity undertaken by the Respondent? iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the Appeal filed by the Appellant? 2. Heard Smt. Preetha, learned Advocate for the Revenue and Shri. Prasad Paranjape, learned Advocate for the assessee. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, assessee is a private limited company registered under the Finance Act, 1994. It is engaged in providing clinical genomic solutions. Various Pharmaceutical Companies approach assessee for analysis and identification of genetic patterns of a disease/ailment. It has set up laboratories to perform these functions and procures samples as per specific requirements for the purpose of test and analysis from hospitals and research centres. The reports are sent to the clients electronically. Assessee pays the service tax when such services are rendered to clients situated in India, when the services are rendered to clients abroad, assessee treats such services as export and does not pay service tax. 4. A show cause notice dated October 18, 2019 was issued to assessee proposing to deny benefits of export of services and a demand of Rs.17,71,79,316/- was raised. The Commissioner of Central Tax passed an OIO Order-in-Original confirming the demand and denied the benefit of export of services holding that the said services are within the taxable territory of India in terms of Rule 4 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. Hereinafter referred as "PoPS Rules" On appeal, CESTAT allowed assessee's appeal holding that place of provision of service is clearly outside India and assessee has satisfied the conditions required for treating the service as export of service. Feeling aggrieved, Revenue has preferred this appeal. 5. Hereinafter referred as "PoPS Rules" On appeal, CESTAT allowed assessee's appeal holding that place of provision of service is clearly outside India and assessee has satisfied the conditions required for treating the service as export of service. Feeling aggrieved, Revenue has preferred this appeal. 5. Smt. Preetha, for the Revenue, praying to allow the appeal submitted that: assessee receives samples from hospitals and research centres within India; PoPS Rules, provides that generally place of provision shall be the location of the service recipient, and if recipient is not available, then the place of provision will be that of the service provider; Rule 4(a) of the PoPS Rules provides that the place of provision of service shall be the location where the services are actually performed, where the services are provided in respect of goods that are required to be made physically available by the recipient to the provider; assessee conducts the tests in laboratories situated within India; 'Scientific testing and analysis services' cannot be treated as 'export' as per Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 6. Opposing the appeal, Shri.Prasad Paranjape, for the Assessee submitted that the services provided by the assessee fulfill all the conditions mentioned under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Rule 3 of the PoPS Rules. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 8. Undisputed fact of the case is, payment of services received by assessee from foreign clients as a service provider is convertible foreign exchange. 9. One of the main contentions of the Revenue, that Rule 4(a) of the PoPS Rules will apply to assessee is untenable because, the Rule requires goods to be made physically available to the recipient by the provider. In the present case, no goods have been made physically available from the recipient to the provider. 10. Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules specifies the conditions to be satisfied for treating a service provided as export of service. The CESTAT has rightly recorded that assessee has clearly satisfied the conditions required for treating the service as export of service. 11. In our view, the services provided by the assessee is an export of service under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, and thus cannot be chargeable to service tax. 12. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) Appeal is dismissed. 11. In our view, the services provided by the assessee is an export of service under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, and thus cannot be chargeable to service tax. 12. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) Appeal is dismissed. (b) Final order No. 20145 to 20155/2022 dated April 01, 2022 passed by CESTAT, Bangalore is confirmed.