TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October 2007 to March 2013 - HELD THAT:- Upon analysis and scrutiny of the joint venture agreement, the adjudicating authority by relying on the Board circular No.109/03/2009 dated 23.02.2009, has held that there is no relationship of service provider or service receiver between the parties to joint venture agreement and there is no consideration received by either side for rendering the service. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent. There are no merits in the appeal filed by Revenue - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/86171/2015, ST/CO/91118/2015 - A/85428/2019 - Dated:- 5-3-2019 - Hon ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Shri M.K. Sarangi, Additional Commissioner (AR), for appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent should be liable to pay service tax on such taxable service. 3. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the period in dispute was from October 2007 to March 2013. Upon analysis and scrutiny of the joint venture agreement, the adjudicating authority by relying on the Board circular No.109/03/2009 dated 23.02.2009, has held that there is no relationship of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice provider and the service receiver and that no consideration has been received for providing any taxable service. Therefore, we are convinced with the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority, wherein he has held that service tax liability cannot be fastened on the respondent. 4. In view of above, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by Revenue. Accordingly, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
