9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entific and technical consultancy services to M/s. Vestas RRB? Held that: - There is no agreement to provide or receive service between the parties in the MOU. Both the parties are mutually interested in attracting the investors to invest in the wind farm and to operationalise 25 wind mills for mutual benefit - the nature of service taxable classification and consideration attributable to such individual services have not been indicated at all - The amount received from M/s. Vestas RRB in terms of the MOU was summarily considered as a consideration for taxable service without examination and pointing out the nature of service and its classification - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd farm. The MOU clearly demarcates the obligations on the part of the respondent. It is clear that the respondent acted as a contractor to execute these works. The Id. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that they are only recipient of service from the sub-contractors. In terms of the MOU the respondent is obliged to provide service to M/s. Vesta RRB and accordingly, is liable to service tax. Taxable services were provided by the sub-contractor will not take away the liability of the respondent to pay service tax. 3. The Id. Counsel for the respondent submitted that they have filed a Cross-Objection against the appeal and further elaborated on the grounds of Cross-Objection. He drew our attention to the terms of MOU to reiterate that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents are discharging service tax. 5. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The impugned order examined the MOU under the scope of the wind mill project as promoted by the respondent. On factual appreciation of the back ground of the case, it is recorded that the respondents developed the required infrastructure or other civil requirements by getting the work done from various sub-contractors. They were actually the recipients of these services. We also note, after perusal of the MOU that the respondent shared certain responsibilities with M/s. Vestas RRB towards operationalising the wind farm. There is no agreement to provide or receive service between the parties in the MOU. Both the parties are mutually intereste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
