TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax of ₹ 1,84,88,270/- under Reverse Charge Mechanism from the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/58605/2013-CU[DB] - ST/A/71030/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 3-5-2018 - SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) And SHRI ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Shri Vishal Agarwal (Advocate) for the Appellant (s) Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Joint Commr.)(A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR: Present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.72/Commissioner/Noida/2012-13 dated 31.03.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Noida. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the earlier name of the appellant was M/s.American Devices (I) Pvt.Ltd. and we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the ld.Counsel for the appellant who has taken us through the agreement entered into by the appellant with SSLC which was confirmed by the companies on 29.09.2006. He has also taken us through the said show cause notice dated 28.09.2012. He contended that the Revenue did not take the entire agreement as a whole into consideration and looked at it in a piecemeal manner and presumed that the appellant was receiving services from SSLC whereas the various clauses of the agreement established that the appellant and SSLC do not have relationship of service provider and service receiver, but they have a relationship of having a joint business. It has argued th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edgers and as per those ledgers the payments made were to the tune of ₹ 16,77,30,366/- and on the said amount Service Tax payable was ₹ 1,84,88,270/-. We find that Revenue could not establish that the said amount paid was not the share of revenue as required by para 6.1 of the said agreement, but it was in respect of Business Auxiliary Service received by the appellant. Revenue has not produced any invoices raised by SSLC on the appellant for providing Business Auxiliary Service to establish that the amounts of ₹ 16,77,30,366/- paid by appellant to SSLC was not in terms of para 6.1 of the agreement, but it was for providing Business Auxiliary Service by SSLC to the appellant. We therefore find that the said show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
