2009 (3) TMI 84 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim for the period 01/01/2004 to 09/09/2004, by the recipient of Consulting engineer s service, on the royalty amounts paid to their foreign collaborators - payments made after 10/09/2004 were also of this nature and no claim for refund thereof has been made by them held that the services received by the appellants from the foreign company were to be classified as consulting engineer s service held that, it is not open to the appellants to deviate from their stand that they were receiving consulting engineer s service from abroad under the agreement for a part of the period - appellants are estopped from construing the provisions of the agreement for a part of the period refund denied

Summary

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI in 2009 (3) TMI 84 - CESTAT MUMBAI involved a dispute where the appellants claimed a refund of service tax paid on royalty amounts to a UK company for technical know-how. The refund claim was rejected based on the original authority's classification of the service received as consulting engineer's service. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal. The appellants argued that the technical know-how transfer did not constitute consulting engineer's service and that service tax on import of services was not applicable pre-2006. The SDR contended that the technical assistance provided by the UK company fell under consulting engineer's service. The tribunal noted that the appellants consistently paid service tax as consulting engineers and continued to do so post-2004, indicating their understanding of the agreement. The tribunal held that the appellants were estopped from claiming a refund based on their conduct and understanding of the agreement, dismissing the appeal.