9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een taxed and the service tax has already been paid by the co-venturer and it would amount to taxing the same transaction more than once under the different categories which is not the spirit of law - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/245/2006-DB - Final Order No. 20234 / 2017 - Dated:- 31-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices for agricultural produce. As per the Joint Venture agreement, the appellant was to retain 75% of the consideration, whereas GIT would be entitled to the balance 25%. On these allegations, the Department issued a show-cause notice and by following due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the appellant under the heading Business Auxiliary Services . Against the Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . If the impugned order is given effect, it would tantamount to taxing the same transaction more than once under different categories. He further submitted that on perusal of the Annexure-A agreement, more specifically clauses 1,2,3,4,5,7,10.1,10.10, conclusively establish that the relationship between the appellant and the GIT is a joint venture. As per the decision rendered in the case of New Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission agent of GIT which of course is not admitted by the appellant. The appellant also relied upon the Notification No.3/2014-ST dated 3.2.2014 issued by the Central Government which provides that the Government has taken a decision not to tax players like appellant for providing service in relation to forward contract and the relevant extract of the Notification is provided as follows: the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the appellant and their co-venturer GIT, the service has already been taxed and the service tax has already been paid by the co-venturer and it would amount to taxing the same transaction more than once under the different categories which is not the spirit of law. The appellants are also covered by the Notification No.14/2004 and Notification No.13/2003 which clearly provides that they ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
