2007 (2) TMI 62 - AT - Service Tax

Demand(Service tax ) Revenue contended that appellant fall within the purview of Consulting Engineer Services and liable to pay service tax Held Appellant is not fall under taxable services category

Summary

Issues:
Stay application and appeal arising from Order-in-Review setting aside relief granted to assessee by Assistant Commissioner regarding service tax on technical information/assistance/know-how received.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the issue of whether the technical information/assistance/know-how received by the assessee should be covered under the category of consulting engineer services for the purpose of levying service tax. The Commissioner set aside the order granting relief to the assessee, leading to the appeal. The Counsel argued that previous judgments had held that such technical assistance does not fall under consulting engineer services. The Tribunal reviewed various judgments, including those of Bharat Electronics Ltd., Rubco Sales International, Amco Batteries Ltd., Micro Finish Valves, Yamaha Motors, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Veleo Friction Material India, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Navinon Ltd., and Turbo Energy Ltd., which all concluded that the transfer of technical information/know-how does not constitute consulting engineering services.

The Tribunal noted that the Original Authority had correctly determined that the receipt of technical assistance did not fall within the definition of consulting engineer services. However, the Commissioner overturned this decision and confirmed the demands. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue had been extensively addressed in previous appeals before the Tribunal and cited judgments that supported the position that technical information/know-how transfer is not covered under consulting engineer services. Consequently, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's order to be inconsistent with the established legal principles outlined in the cited judgments. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Original order was legally sound and allowed the stay application and appeal in accordance with the precedents cited.

This judgment underscores the importance of legal precedent and consistency in interpreting the scope of consulting engineer services for levying service tax. It highlights the significance of prior judicial decisions in guiding current legal interpretations and ensuring uniformity in legal outcomes. The detailed analysis of past judgments provided a solid foundation for the Tribunal's decision to uphold the Original Authority's ruling and grant relief to the assessee based on established legal principles.