TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1696
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against M/s RK Structure Pvt Ltd. 2. M/s National Textile Corporation (North Maharashtra) Ltd, desirous of selling their land and building at Model Mill, Nagpur along with the old and used machinery lying therein, floated tender in which the appellant happened to be the highest bidder. The appellant incorporated M/s Goldbrick Infrastructure Pvt Ltd with themselves as the main promoter for the development and construction of the said property and, on 20th July 2007, entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) this new 'special purpose vehicle (SPV)' for assembling, including by demolition of the structures, and disposing, scrap and other material lying on the premises after the finalisation of the tender as quid pro quo for the cost ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the tax liable till 10th May 2008, the adjudicating authority also invoked the penal provision in section 76 of Finance Act, 1994. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that no service had been rendered to M/s Goldbrick Infrastructure Pvt Ltd and that the MoU had been entered into to facilitate demolition only for removal of their own property from the premises that was now in possession of another entity. It was also contended that no consideration had been received from the developer of the purchased property and that the scrap generated in the process of removal was compensation for the costs borne by the appellant for participation in the tender process. 6. We have heard Learned Authorised Representative who argued that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lition and such other similar activities' within the enumeration of section 65 (105) of Finance Act, 1994. That the appellant did demolish structures and dismantled machinery which were then removed from the premises is not disputed. Therefore, all that remains to be decided upon by us is the denial of the existence of recipient of service and of consideration having been received from such recipient. 9. From our comprehension of the tendering process, it would appear that the appellant, although successful in being accepted as the highest bidder, assigned its rights thereto over the land to M/s Goldbrick Infrastructure Pvt Ltd who were obliged to pay the purchase price to M/s National Textile Corporation (North Maharashtra) Ltd. This....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in which M/s Goldbrick Infrastructure Pvt Ltd had no participation was not difficult as they appeared to have interest only on the land. Consequently, the acknowledgement of the appellant having paid the cost of participation does not, of itself, lead to the conclusion that this was a payment effected to the appellant. 12. It would, therefore, appear that the conformity of demolition and removal with the description of the taxable service along with the fortuitous possession of all the structures and machinery on the property by participation, and bearing of cost, in the tender process has prompted the confirmation of the tax liability by the adjudicating authority without ascertaining the existence of an agreement, oral or otherwise, fo....