9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of Finance Act 1994 holding that M/s Avi Oil India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Avi Oil") has paid consideration to Nyco SA of Paris (hereinafter referred to as NYCO) for providing consulting Engineering Service. Ld. Adjudicating Authority on the basis of show-cause notice dated 19.4.05 proceeded to raise the levy against Nyco S.A. holding that Noticee as the Service provider in respect of consideration received for the impugned period from 7.7.97 to 16.8.02. 2.1 Ld. Counsel Shri J.F. Pochkhanawala and Shri Sunil Kumar appearing for both the appellants in these cases submitted that the adjudication has arisen out of common cause for which a common order for adjudication was passed and both the appeals are under the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided by NYCO to serve the purpose of Revenue. While requirement of law being to test fact under the provisions of the Finance Act 1994 to serve the purpose of law. He drew our attention to para-2 of the show-cause notice to submit that the appellant is not at all an engineering firm and there is no material brought on record to say that Nyco is also rendering engineering consulting service in the globe as an engineering firm. He proceeds to submit that Revenue has started to make the levy in terms of para 5.1.2 of the show-cause notice with an abrupt conclusion that consulting engineering service was provided by Nyco S.A. to M/s Avi Oil India Ltd. holding each other as consulting engineering service provider and consulting engineering servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the documentation was done to facilitate the payment for the defined purpose and not for providing engineering Consultancy when NYCO is not an engineering firm. He submits that when the joint venture documents were submitted to various Government agencies for approval there was no suppression of any fact to Revenue since those have become public documents for which the proceeding even suffers from limitation. 3. Ld. Counsel Shri Sunil Kumar submits that the joint venture appellant company i.e. Avi Oil is also an appellant for the causes enumerated in the order of adjudication. It has never received any service as consulting engineering service from Nyco. When there was no engineering consultancy service provided, the consideration paid in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consultancy service in the globe to anybody. Therefore, ld. DRs reliance on para-2 does not get any sanction in the eyes of law in absence of any cogent evidence. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the record. 6. We have thoroughly gone through the averments of both the sides. To appreciate the case of the Revenue, Revenue should have brought to record that Nyco is a consulting engineering firm providing engineering service commercially having been manned by professional qualified engineers. But primary object appears to be sharing of know how to participate in a joint venture to enjoy fruit thereof by each other. Nothing is shown by Revenue to establish that Nyco shall leave India after rendering consulting engineering s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
