Page 132 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

50 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
taxable service under the category of ‘support services of business or commerce’,
defined under Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994. Revenue contended that
in view of the Negative List of taxable service dated 1-7-2012, the 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 23-2-2009, has held that there is no relationship of ser-
vice provider or service receiver between the parties to joint venture agreement
and there is no consideration received by either side for rendering the service. He
has further held that the agreement specifically provides that the profit/loss aris-
ing out of the business should be shared by both sides. Thus, it transpires that
there is no involvement of two persons to execute the terms of the agreement;
one is to be considered as service provider and the other to be service receiver.
The department has not challenged the show cause notice issued for the entire
period, i.e. prior to introduction of the negative list and thereafter. Thus, it
emerges that the department is not contesting specifically the findings of the
Learned Commissioner that there is no relationship existing between the service
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, the same is dismissed. The cross objection filed by the
respondent is disposed of.
(Pronounced in Court)

_______

2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 50 (Tri. - Bang.)

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE
Shri S.S. Garg, Member (J)
MINERA STEEL & POWER PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF C.T., BELAGAVI
Final Order No. 20874/2019, dated 21-10-2019 in Appeal No. E/20672/2019-SM
Cenvat credit - Common inputs used to manufacture dutiable and ex-
empted goods - Manufacturers of sponge iron and MS billets selling electricity
generated using of waste products - Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 not
applicable - Coal ash/Dolo char being residual waste arising out of burning of
coal it cannot be stated as a manufacture of final product - Failure by authori-
ties below to take note if amendment introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2016 adding Rule
6(3AA) ibid which permits assessee to reverse/pay proportionate Cenvat credit
relating to common input or attributable to input services - Assessee satisfying

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  132