2018 (7) TMI 1120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant (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 were a un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ss Auxiliary Service' to the appellant and further it appeared that SSLC did not have any office in India and therefore under the provisions of section 66A of Finance Act, 1994, the appellant were required to pay Service Tax of Rs. 1,84,88,270/- under Reverse Charge Mechanism for receiving 'Business Auxiliary Service' from a foreign entity who did not have office in India. Therefore, the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 that at para 6.1 of the said agreement which is about financial terms, it was agreed that both the companies in order to compensate for the client relationship SSLC has built up .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. Heard the ld.AR for the Revenue, who has submitted that the amounts paid by the appellant to SSLC were on account of 'Business Auxiliary Services'. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records particularly the said agreement dated 29.09.2006 and show cause notice dated 28.09.2012 we find that in para 10 of the show cause notice Revenue has contended that party has prov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the appellant. We therefore find that the said show cause notice dated 28.09.2012 is not sustainable for demand of Service Tax of Rs. 1,84,88,270/- under Reverse Charge Mechanism from the appellant. We therefore set aside the impugned order-in-original and allow the appeal. The appellant shall be entitled for consequential relief, as per law. (Dictated and pronounced in the court.)
Case la .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X