2014 (10) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the appeal filed by ONGC stating that as no show-cause notice has been issued to the ONGC nor the ONGC is a part of adjudication, therefore, the appeal filed by ONGC is not maintainable before this Tribunal as aggrieved party. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Considering the fact that the impugned order has been served on ONGC and the ONGC sought interference in participating in the proceedings therefore, we hold that the appeal filed by ONGC is maintainable before this Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are that HOSI are providing certain services under the category of Consulting Engineer Service to ONGC which are reproduced as under:-     (a) HOSI is engaged in providing equipment and tools for measuring/reading of sub-surfa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ho has also confirmed the adjudication order. At this stage ONGC participated in the proceedings and therefore the impugned order was served on ONGC. Aggrieved by the said order, both the appellants are in appeals before us. 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of HOSI submits that the activity narrated here-in-above is in nature of execution of work and they have not given any service of Consultancy/Technical assistance to ONGC. As per the definition of Consulting Engineer Service under Section 65 (31) of the Finance Act, 1994, they do not qualify as Consulting Engineer therefore, they are not required to pay service tax on their activity. He further submits that the appellant is neither a qualified engineer nor an engineering firm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... therefore, HOSI is an engineering firm. He further submits that HOSI is processing data supplying through hard copy to the ONGC therefore, the activity of HOSI is in the nature of technical assistance therefore, they correctly paid the service tax. In alternate he submits that as the service tax has been paid by ONGC against the service provided by HOSI in that case time limit for filing the refund claim is applicable as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, as per the decision in the case CCE Goa v. Andrews Telecommunications India P. Ltd. - 2012 (28) STR 588 (Tri.) . He submits that as refund claim is barred by limitation therefore, they are not entitled for refund claim. He further submits that bar of unjust enrichment is also ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X