9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against Service Tax levied on receipt of technical assistance under Technical Know-how Agreement for manufacture of telephone equipment.
Summary: Issue 1: Liability for Service Tax on receipt of technical assistance The appeal arose from the confirmation of Service Tax on the appellant for receiving technical assistance under a Technical Know-how Agreement. The appellant argued that they cannot be levied with Service Tax for paying royalty as there was no provision in the Finance Act for the relevant period. The Tribunal noted that the amendment imposing Service Tax on technical know-how services came into effect from 16-8-2002, while the period in this case pertained to 1-4-2001 to 30-9-2001. The stay application was allowed based on this plea. Issue 2: Classification of technical know-how services The appellant's counsel referred to various rulings to support their argument that transferring technical know-how falls under consulting engineering services and not under 'Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services'. They cited precedents such as CCE v. Rubco Sales International and CCE v. Sun Metal & Alloys Ltd. to establish that the appellant does not fall under the category of 'Consulting Engineer'. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, stating that the appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax under the mentioned categories. Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the receipt of technical know-how services was not liable for Service Tax during the relevant period. The appellant was found not to fall under the categories of 'Consulting Engineer' or 'Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services' based on the cited judgments, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief, if any.
|
